Talk:North Macedonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Republic of Macedonia)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Albanian language is the 2nd official state-wide language since 14.01.2019[edit]

@MacedonianBoy: According to the "Law for use of languages, Article 1, Paragraph 2" the Albanian language is official on the whole territory of the Republic of Macedonia. The law was promulgated in the "Public Enterprise Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia", Issue 7, 14.01.2019, which makes it effective since that date. Note that the "official_languages" parameter of template "Infobox country" is for "Languages recognised in legislation, constitution, etc.", not only according to the constitution.

Here's what the Law for use of languages says (non official translation):

Article 1

(1) The entire territory of the Republic of Macedonia and in its international relations is the official language of the Macedonian language and its Cyrillic alphabet.

(2) Another language spoken by at least 20% of the citizens (Albanian language) is also an official language and its alphabet, in accordance with this law.

(3) In all of bodies of state power in the Republic of Macedonia, central institutions, public enterprises, agencies, directorates, institutions and organizations, commissions, legal entities that perform public authorizations in accordance with law and other institutions, an official language in addition to the Macedonian language and its alphabet is the language spoken by 20% of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia and its alphabet, as defined in this Law.

(4) In the bodies of local self-government, the language and alphabet used by at least 20% of the citizens is an official language, in addition to the Macedonian language and its Cyrillic alphabet. About the use of languages ​​and alphabets spoken by less than 20% of the citizens in the units of local self-government, the bodies of the local self-government units decide.

Official text:

Член 1

(1) На целата територија во Република Македонија и во нејзините меѓународни односи службен јазик е македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо.

(2) Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните (албански јазик), исто така, е службен јазик и неговото писмо, согласно овој закон.

(3) Во сите органи на државната власт во Република Македонија, централни институции, јавни претпријатија, агенции, дирекции, установи и организации, комисии, правни лица кои вршат јавни овластувања согласно закон и други институции, службен јазик покрај македонскиот јазик и неговото писмо е и јазикот што го зборуваат 20% од граѓаните на Република Македонија и неговото писмо, на начин определен со овој закон.

(4) Во единиците на локалната самоуправа јазикот и писмото што го користат најмалку 20% од граѓаните е службен јазик, покрај македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо. За употребата на јазиците и писмата на кои зборуваат помалку од 20% од граѓаните во единиците на локалната самоуправа, одлучуваат органите на единиците на локалната самоуправа.

As you can see, only Paragraph 4 is related to the local use of the language. Paragraphs 1, 2 & 3 is for the country wide use. This Law makes the Albanian language an official language recognized as such in the Republic of Macedonia legislation. Let me know if you have any objections toward moving the Albanian language in the Official languages part of the infobox.--StanProg (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The Constitution still recognizes Macedonian as the primary official language state-wide and only official language internationally speaking, Albanian has extended official usage, but not on the same level with Macedonian, hence in international relations the only official language remains the Macedonian and the formulation - "another language spoken by more than 20%" and "...is official in accordance with this law" makes the law complementary to the Constitution which was the case even before it. The key difference is that Albanian now is official in more government-based institutions & Parliament. I think that there needs to be additional category in the infobox which will be in accordance with the Macedonian legislation for example: "Second State-wide official language: Albanian". If Albanian was de jure second official then I would not write this now. Some smaller Albanian parties did request an amendment to the Constitution that would stipulate Albanian as a second official language, if that ever happens Albanian will be on par with Macedonian, right now it isn't.Macedonicus (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Albanian designated Macedonia's 2nd Official Language per Associated Press confirmed by the New York Times on Jan. 15, 2019. Jingiby (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Albanian media have been going around with this since 2008, it doesn't mean it's true though. I prefer reading information from legal documents instead of media. Macedonicus (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
If it was official, it would be in the constitution. Since you refer to the media, why dont you mention the fact that they (Albanian political parties) still think its not official and on the same level as Macedonian? One of the conditions (which was rejected by Zaev) was making Albanian same as Macedonian. This law is more or less the same to the existing from 2008, the difference is the plaques and the websites (big deal). RegardsMacedonianBoy (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Macedonicus: The parameter "official_languages" is not only for the official language according to the constitution, but according to the legislation as well, which is the case here. Also the "official languages" is not just for "international relations", but the official languages of the country - country-wide (there is separate parameter for the local ones i.e. used in specific Municipalities). Since yesterday the Albanian language is official in all government institutions, not in "more government-based institutions & Parliament". It was already official in the Parliament before that Law. No need for "additional category in the infobox which will be in accordance with the Macedonian legislation", since "official_languages" definition already includes that: "Languages recognised in legislation, constitution, etc.". Of course the Albanian language should be 2nd in the list of the official languages, and we could add notes regarding the fact, that the Albanian language is official according to the legislation, and may be a note for the Macedonian language that is official according to the constitution and the legislation. You can read the law article above. Also you can check the Decree itself: [1] from the official facebook page of the President of the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia, who signed it. --StanProg (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@MacedonianBoy: The "Official languages" parameter of the "Infobox country" template is not just for the official languages according to the constitution, but also for the ones according to the legislation as well. So this is the exact place for the Albanian language, according to the Law promulgated yesterday. What "Albanian political parties" think is irrelevant. It's not just "plaques and the websites" as you can see in Article 1 "In all of bodies of state power in the Republic of Macedonia, central institutions, public enterprises, agencies, directorates, institutions and organizations, commissions, legal entities that perform public authorizations in accordance with law and other institutions". --StanProg (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Did you skip the part with 'in regions where the the population is more than 20%, but different from the Macedonian'? Read better.MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
No I didn't. This is related to the other languages, which has more than 20% speakers only in specific regions, like Turkish, Romani, Serbian, etc. In Article 1, Paragrah 2 it is explicitly specified that it's about Albanian language, since this is the 2nd language which has more than 20% speakers as a whole in Republic of Macedonia. Other languages except Macedonian and Albanian have less than 20% speakers countrywide. According the the Law there are 2 official languages, and more official ones only in local context i.e. in the specific municipalities. --StanProg (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
To summarize:
  • Paragraph 1 is for the official Macedonian language
  • Paragraph 2 is for the official Albanian language
  • Paragraph 3 is for the countrywide (global) organizations (related to Macedonian and Albanian - the language spoken by 20% of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia)
  • Paragraph 4 is for the local administration (related to all the languages)
--StanProg (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) Do we have reliable secondary sources that state clearly that the status of Albanian will be effective across the whole country? I may be missing something, but so far I haven't seen any actual source that says so; the only citable source brought forward above was the nytimes article at [2], but that one explicitly says "Albanian will now be used by state institutions in areas where ethnic Albanians comprise over 20 percent of the population". It may well be mistaken about that, but do we have anything more precise? Fut.Perf. 19:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia's Albanian-Language Bill Becomes Law, Radio Free Europe/Radio LibertyJanuary 15, 2019. Jingiby (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: The last sentence from NY Times "Albanian will now be used by state institutions in areas where ethnic Albanians comprise over 20 percent of the population." is actually something that was added to the Constitution according to the Ohrid Agreement in 2001 (Amendment V), so this is not something new. --StanProg (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Under the new legislation, Macedonian continues to be the primary official language, while Albanian, which has until now been an official language only in areas where the minority makes up at least 20 percent of the population, will be used now as a second official one, including at a national level: in administrative, health, judicial, police, and other official matters. Jingiby (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, that is why I propose a change in the infobox, the current depiction is misleading/misguiding as if Albanian is on the same level as Macedonian. If you are an ethnic Macedonian your passport will have Macedonian, English and French but if you are ethnic Albanian in North Macedonia your passport will contain Macedonian, Albanian, English and French. I hope I am clear enough as to explain the difference. North Macedonia will have one constitutive official language for every purpose just like before and two official state-wide languages, and even in the state-wide affairs it won't be 100% equal to Macedonian, hence the need for additional clarification. Macedonicus (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The infobox as it is now does not imply that Albanian is 100% equal to Macedonian - it implies that Albanian is used officially under certain circumstances, which it is according to the new law. The fact that certain passports will use Albanian in them shows precisely this. An official language is a language used by the apparatus of the state; a regional language is a language used within a certain region of said state. To not include Albanian as an official language (even though it is not the only official language) would effectively wrongly downgrade it to a regional language as opposed to what the intention of the law seems to be. --Michail (blah) 21:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I was talking about the Official languages section, Macedonian and Albanian are listed, which is okay, but it would be better/correct if there is a new categorization above this lets say titled as 'Official language for state-wide and international relations' (or some more adequate formulation) which would enlist the Macedonian only and below it another category titled 'Official languages country-wide or state-wide' which would enlist Macedonian and Albanian.Macedonicus (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Not good, since Albanian is not nation-wide. Not used on currency, nor the official markings/ uniforms/ signs where there are not 20% Albanians. The law states that, that Albanian is co-official in procedures/ uniforms/ street signs where there are at least 20% population different than the Macedonian. More accurate will be Official language (Macedonian listed), Regional working language (Albanian) and Regional minor languages (Serbian all others).MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree, that could work too.Macedonicus (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@MacedonianBoy: This is very far from the facts. As stated in Article 2, Paragraph 2 the Albanian language is the 2nd official language in the state. All country-wide institutions are obligated to use it as official. The Albanian language is country-wide language in "In all organs of state power in the Republic of Macedonia" (Article 1, Paragrah 3) and this is far from the definition that you give as "Regional working language". It is official language in the Parliament (Article 4) and in the Government (Article 5). In the court yards the Albanian language is also country-wide official (Article 9). At the notary documents the Albanian language is also country-wide official, alongside the Macedonian - "notary procedures, notarial documents and certificates can be only in Macedonian and Albanian" (Article 10, Paragraph 1) and enforcement agent procedure documents must be in Albanian, if the person speaks that language (Article 10, Paragraph 2). The Personal documents and passports are also in Albanian (20% of the citizens) which is also country-wide use (Article 12, Paragraph 3). The identity cards the names will also be written in Albanian (20% of the citizens rule) - country-wide obviously (Article 13, Paragraph 2). The only exception for country-wide use is regarding the money & postmark stamps - they may not be in Albanian, but they will contain symbols that represent the Albanian (20% of the citizens) cultural heritage (Article 8). For me there's no doubt that according to the new Law, the Albanian language became 2nd official and country-wide language, which puts it exactly in the category "Official languages (according to the legislation)". Of course it's not equal to the Macedonian language, but still country-wide official, not just "regional working". --StanProg (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@StanProg: One tiny fact is being kept forgotten, the article that says Macedonian is the only official one for international relations. Wikipedia is an international relation and as such it falls under that category. Where can I propose the infobox changes though? I strongly feel they are the solution for our situation.Macedonicus (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Albanian has equal status as does Macedonian, in the Republic of Macedonia so it should be part of "Official languages" [1] Dark pikachuu (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Dark_pikachuu

@Macedonicus: The description of the parameter "official_languages" does not explicitly specify that it's only used for "official languages for international relations". It says: "Languages recognised in legislation, constitution, etc.". Also, I'm not convinced based on the text and the explanation of the Law that Albanian language can't be used for international relations. This is not written explicitly. For that we may need some reliable source. You can propose a change on the talk page of the template. Make sure you ping some of the most active editors of the template - this will attract more attention. For me a good solution is to add the Albanian language after the Macedonian in "Official languages" and with a small note to specify the big differences. In the "Languages" section of the article we can add some more detailed information, based on that Law. --StanProg (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Again you skip fact Stan just to push your point. The law says that the other language (Albanian) is official as 'this law defines' and just under that it says in municipalities and regions where Albanians make 20%. Since you do not understand, let me explain. In Struga on the border cross will say Република Македонија and Republika e Maqedonise (same for the uniforms/ street signs/ plaques/ etc), but in Strumica, Gevgelija, Kriva Palanka, Bitola it will say only Република Македонија (same for uniforms/ street signs/etc). The only new thing now, is that they can send a letter or refer to the courts/ government in Albanian. Everything else was as it was. Still dont get it? (If it was equal the Denars would be in Albanian, Macedonians would have Albanian in schools, etc). Regards. Since its not official as Macedonian, the level of usage of the Albanian should be mentioned in the language section, but not in infobox or intro. MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand it pretty well. You are talking about the exceptions from the country-wide use, which are minor. Up until this Law, there was just "AMENDMENT V" from the Constitution introduced in 2001:

AMENDMENT V

1. The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language throughout the Republic of Macedonia and in the international relations of the Republic of Macedonia. Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below. Any official personal documents of citizens speaking an official language other than Macedonian shall also be issued in that language, in addition to the Macedonian language, in accordance with the law. Any person living in a unit of local self-government in which at least 20 percent of the population speaks an official language other than Macedonian may use that official language to communicate with the regional office of the central government with responsibility for that municipality; such an office shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian. Any person may use any official language to communicate with a main office of the central government, which shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian.

In the organs of the Republic of Macedonia, any official language other than Macedonian may be used in accordance with the law. In the units of local self-government where at least 20 percent of the population speaks a particular language, that language and its alphabet shall be used as an official language in addition to the Macedonian language and the Cyrillic alphabet. With respect to languages spoken by less than 20 percent of the population of a unit of local self-government, the local authorities shall decide on their use in public bodies.

2. This amendment replaces Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia.

This amendment was replaced by the "Law for use of languages" which has 24 times more text, so your theory of "Everything else was as it was" is very far from the truth.

Here's the official explanation of the Article 1, Paragrahs 1, 2 & 3 which are related to county-wide use of the Albanian language:

Со член 1 е пропишано дека на целата територија во Република Македонија и во нејзините меѓународни односи службен јазик е македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо. Исто така, друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните е службен јазик и неговото писмо (албански), согласно овој закон. Во сите органи на државната власт во Република Македонија, централни институции, јавни претпријатија, агенции, дирекции, установи и организации, комисии, правни лица кои вршат јавни овластувања согласно закон и други институции, службен јазик покрај македонскиот јазик и неговото писмо е и јазикот што го зборуваат 20% од граѓаните на Република Македонија и неговото писмо, на начин определен со овој закон.

which roughly can be translated as:

Article 1 stipulates that the official language of the Republic of Macedonia and in its international relations is the Macedonian language and its Cyrillic alphabet. Also, another language spoken by at least 20% of the citizens is an official language and its alphabet (Albanian), in accordance with this law. In all organs of state power in the Republic of Macedonia, central institutions, public enterprises, agencies, directorates, institutions and organizations, commissions, legal entities that perform public authorizations according to law and other institutions, an official language in addition to the Macedonian language and its alphabet is also the language is spoken by 20% of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia and its letter, in a manner defined by this law.

Do you understand that this makes the language country-wide official or you still insist on the minor currency/postmarks/street/square/bridge names & road signs exceptions? As I said the Albanian language is not equal regarding the use to the Macedonian, but it's the 2nd official on the whole territory of the Republic of Macedonia. It's not official just in regional context. --StanProg (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Minister of Economy of Republic of Macedonia Kreshnik Bekteshi, clearly says: "Од денеска официјален јазик во Република Македонија е македонскиот и албанскиот јазик." (From today, official languages of the Republic of Macedonia are the Macedonian and the Albanian languages). Бектеши: Од денеска официјален јазик е и албанскиот јазик (ВИДЕО). Any comments @MacedonianBoy and Macedonicus: or the Minister also "do not understand" the Law? --StanProg (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@MacedonianBoy: @StanProg:The minister is an ethnic Albanian AND politician, of course he is going to say that. I will once again say, I don't bother with what people and media say, I only care what laws and legal matter say, they speak louder than any politician or journalist. If two languages are not on a same level, then they should not be in a same category. Again, the solution could be custom made template for North Macedonia, I mentioned the details above. The Constitution is very clear about which official language is more official and which one is less official and Wikipedia needs to portray that as well, but I will not allow a random curious person who googles North Macedonia to get a misleading information that Albanian is on the same level as Macedonian. When they change the constitution in some near or distant future and they do in fact say 'The official languages of the Republic of North Macedonia are Macedonian and Albanian for every usage, both international and internal', then I would be the first one to make the changes here.Macedonicus (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with @Macedonicus and well said. Below is a thread about how to address an Albanian name in the article possible within a name section so it deals with the legislation without it being POV.Resnjari (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Macedonicus and Resnjari: Why does the Minister of Economy lies that the Albanian language is a official language of the Republic of Macedonia? Because he is a Minister or because he is an Ethnic Albanian? If he was Ethnic Macedonian will you believe him? Now seriously. If the politicians (including Ministers) and journalists are wrong, why do you think that your interpretation of the Law is right? It's pretty clear what the Law says. I agree that the two languages are not identical as principles of applying as official languages, just like in other multi-lingual countries, like Belgium, Switzerland, etc - there are always exceptions. In the "Official languages" section of the Infobox, after Macedonian and Albanian languages we can add a note, explaining that the Macedonian is official according to the Constitution and both are official according to the legislation (Law for use of languages). The specifics can be added in the Language section. You don't need to create a separate infobox template for the Republic of Macedonia. It will not even be a template in that case. --StanProg (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Macedonicus, Resnjari, and StanProg: I agree with StanProg. Just because he is a different ethnicity that does not discredit him. He is the Minister of Economy. We should avoid that type of stereotyping this discussion. @StanProg: I also agree that we should include a note in the official languages section. Vepton (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe a note or something like that as you propose @StanProg for the infobox explaining the status of Albanian (propose some kind of wording for this), but not the Alb language name for the state in the infobox and lede, due to reasons as explained above and below in another thread. The Alb name of the state can go into the Name/Etymology section to avoid POV.Resnjari (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari: Here's what I came with: Macedonian (Official on the whole territory of the state and in its international relations), Albanian (Official on a state level (excluding defense, central police and monetary policy) and in the units of the local self-government, where at least 20% of the population speaks the Albanian language). --StanProg (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Where would you like to place this, in footnotes to the lead and to the box? For my taste that's far too detailed there; this should go somewhere further down in the body. Fut.Perf. 13:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@MacedonianBoy, Resnjari, and StanProg: Here's an official statement for the most relevant institution - the Government (https://vlada.mk/node/16423):

Законот за јазици ги унапредува правата на сите немнозински заедници и не предвидува нови вработувања, а македонскиот јазик со кирилското писмо останува единствен службен јазик и на цела територија на Република Македонија и во нејзините меѓународни односи

...работата на Агенцијата ќе се однесува на сите јазици...


..Агенцијата ќе ги опслужува општините и другите институции во оние населени места каде што мнозинството граѓани се Македонци. Во тие градови, во случај кога некој граѓанин од албанска, ромска, бошњачка, српска, турска, ромска или друга етничка заедница ќе има потреба од каков бил документ на друг јазик, покрај македонскиот јазик, тогаш Централната агенција ќе им излезе во пресрет на тие граѓани, да им обезбеди услуга на нивниот мајчин јазик којшто најдобро го разбираат...

..Употребата на македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо е регулирана со ставот 1 од наведениот амандман на Уставот и со Законот за употреба на македонскиот јазик од 1998 година и при тоа македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо е службен јазик на целата територија на Република Македонија и во нејзините меѓународни односи...


..Законот не воведува целосна двојазичност ниту на целата територија на Република Македонија, ниту во сите области на правниот поредок. Во меѓународните односи, одбраната, централната полиција и монетарната политика, македонскиот јазик е единствен официјален јазик во Република Македонија, што е утврдено со Законот за употреба на македонскиот јазик од 1998 година...


Unofficial translation made by me:

The law on languages promotes the rights for every minority language and does not require new employments, and Macedonian language with its cyrillic script remains the only official language through the entire territory of the Republic of Macedonia and its international relations.

...the work of the Agency will enhance every minority language...


..The agency will service the municipalities and other institutions where the majority ethnic group is Macedonian. In those places, in case Albanian, Romani, Bosniak, Serbian, Turkish or some other ethnic minority has a need of a document in their own native language apart from the Macedonian, the Central agency will provide them service in their native language...

..Macedonian language and its cyrillic script is official language on the entire territory of RoM and in its international relations...


..The law does not bring full bilinguality neither on the entire territory of Macedonia, nor in every aspect of the jurisdiction. In the international relations, defense, central police and monetary policy, Macedonian language is the only official language in the Republic of Macedonia...


Macedonicus (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

StanProg, your wording is good. Future Perfect at Sunrise has a point about detail, so we can place it in the language section. Thoughts? Looking at the section it has sentences that needs some upgrading and clarification. The first sentence is this The official and most widely spoken language are Macedonian, followed by Albanian. and the second is this Although it is the only language explicitly designated as an official national language in the constitution, in municipalities where at least 20% of the population is part of another ethnic minority, those individual languages are used for official purposes in local government, alongside Macedonian and Albanian. The other languages are official but not in the same sense as Albanian is now due to the upgrade. Best guys.Resnjari (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Agreed. StanProg provides indisputable evidence. I also recommend we modify the info box as well as the first sentence with Albanian as the second official language. Not sure why there is so much objection to this when it is clearly outlined in the official gazette. Vepton (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: This can be added as ref note in the Official languages section of the Infobox, like: Macedonian[2], Albanian[3]. That way it will not be intrusive and if someone needs more detail, can take a look at the note. After all this "official languages" is for constitutional, legislative, etc. ones, so I think it's good to be clarified there as a note. I'm not convinced if we should or should not include the Albanian as an "Official regional language" in the Infobox, because in a regional context the Albanian is treated the same as all the other languages, except Macedonian. @Resnjari: In the language section we can be more detailed. If we add the Albanian as "official regional", we can skip the "and in the units of the local self-government, where at least 20% of the population speaks the Albanian language" part from the "Official languages" reference note. Locally (per Municipality) the Albanian language is on the same level as all the other minority languages, so we don't need to mentions "alongside Macedonian and Albanian". Regarding the local use, it's more like "alongside Macedonian". --StanProg (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
StanProg that's sounds fine. I'm on board with that. Best. :)Resnjari (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.botasot.info/maqedonia/1012953/zyrtarizohet-gjuha-shqipe-ne-maqedoni-arritje-shume-e-madhe-per-stabilitetin-e-shtetit/
  2. ^ Official on the whole territory of the state and in its international relations
  3. ^ Official on a state level (excluding defense, central police and monetary policy) and in the units of the local self-government, where at least 20% of the population speaks the Albanian language

Lead sentence bloat[edit]

The worst bad habit of Wikipedians is not POV-pushing, but pedantry. And among the worst forms of pedantry on Wikipedia is lead sentence bloat. As of today, this article has 11(!) name variants, glosses and transcriptions in its lead sentence, up from nine before people added Albanian translations today. This, plus several times the strings "Macedonian" and "Albanian" as language tags. On my screen this makes more than two entire lines of text consisting only of variants of the term "Macedonia", which the reader has to parse before they even get to the defining predicate "... is a country ...". This is not even counting all the coverage of "Former Yugoslav" or "North Macedonia" variants in the rest of the lead paragraph.

This is unacceptable. It's nothing to do with whether or not we want to acknowledge the new co-official status of Albanian. But it can't be stressed often enough: We should not use the mentioning or non-mentioning of a name translation in a lead sentence as a symbolic mark of the significance of this or that language for the topic of the article. The only real criterion for what name variants should be in the lead sentence is what is important and interesting to our (English-speaking) readers. This list needs to be cut down, to (I'd say) maximally half its present length. Other details (including phonetic info, transliterations, translations in the co-official language etc.) need to be moved to a "Name" section further down. I'll probably do that some time tomorrow if and when I find the time; until then I'm open for suggestions about which entries should be prioritized. Fut.Perf. 21:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, i agree. The two mini paragraphs that can be removed from the lede are the ones starting with "The country became a member" and "The Prespa agreement" (although maybe the bit about being in the UN might be needed?). Overall too much and wp:undue (especially the second paragraph).Resnjari (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the subsequent paragraphs of the lead section. Those are fine as far as I'm concerned. I was talking exclusively about the overlong list of name glosses right at the beginning of the first sentence. Fut.Perf. 22:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
On the bit you refer to, about the lede sentence, other articles have that kind of thing as well. If its removed here, all it would do is encourage some editors who feel aggrieved to edit war over it by adding or removing bits of info. On the paragraphs themselves they are over bloating. There is no need to go on about the Prespa deal in that amount of detail or for that matter the silly name dispute with Greece. The country went through much more in its history and those events are only mentioned in the lede in a limited sense. At the very least the Prespa deal and name issue should be shrunk to a sentence or two and placed in chronological order in the area of the lede talking about its history (not in its current position which is WP:UNDUE).Resnjari (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise, I looked around and one article stood out as an example that both deals with the official name and names in other languages that are official in certain parts of the country, but not the whole. See the Spain article they deal with it as a note in the first sentence. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me the Spanish solution is a good one. Jonathunder (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Another solution is the Switzerland/Belgium one i.e. to be only in the Infobox. --StanProg (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Those are good too, but i am also looking at it from the perspective of which example will cause the least edit wars as well. Editors who have an interest on Macedonian related topics may oppose the Switzerland/Belgium model, while those with a focus on Albanian related topics may prefer that. The Spain page example gets to cover those extra names while not causing widespread issues. Editors have pointed out that Albanian is not the official working language of the whole state, even with Albanian becoming an official 2nd language in places that have speakers at the 20% mark and services extended beyond that geographically for certain things.Resnjari (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
More discussion is needed for which formula best fits here.Resnjari (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this. The Albanian (and in future other) have legal improvement in the usage of the languages, but still geographically limited. Basically its the old law, which was named Usage of languages on municipal level, not a bit extended and put into new legal frame. The names of the country in other languages other then Macedonian should be put into Name section. The Spain example in the intro paragraph is also good, Macedonian name with notes, but I am more for the Name/ Etymology section. MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
A name/etymology section can do it too.Resnjari (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Usage of Albanian language is no more geographically limited. The law extends the official use of Albanian over the entire country, easing communication in Albanian with institutions like municipalities, hospitals and courts. The previous law defined Albanian as an official language, but only gave it that status in those areas where Albanians make up over 20 per cent of the local population. Jingiby (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the new law has extended its use over the whole country in that sense, but still its not the official working language like on coinage and so on. Its tricky this because the ramifications are wider. For example in Wikipedia it would be POV (and provocative) to place an Albanian name for all the settlements of Macedonia that do not have an Albanian population, or for that matter municipalities like say Strumica, Delcevo as Komuna e Strumicës or Komuna e Dellçevës for the same reason. I guess for here a name section would be the best way to avoid edits wars, not come out as POVish while still satisfying those that want the Albanian name in an area of the article where its visible, while satisfying others who do not want it pushed in the infobox or lede sentence.Resnjari (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Official explanation by the Macedonian government regarding the languages:

Законот не воведува целосна двојазичност ниту на целата територија на Република Македонија, ниту во сите области на правниот поредок. Во меѓународните односи, одбраната, централната полиција и монетарната политика, македонскиот јазик е единствен официјален јазик во Република Македонија, што е утврдено со Законот за употреба на македонскиот јазик од 1998 година.

The law does not implement total bilingualism nor on the whole territory of the Republic of Macedonia, nor in the areas of the law regulations. For the international relations, defence, central police and monetary policy, the Macedonian is the sole official language in the Republic of Macedonia, which is regulated by the Law on the Macedonian from 1998

Furthermore, they explain that the law gives the minorities to use their language, and regarding the municipalities where no such minorities exist, but a person may seek a document on a language different than the Macedonian, the Central agency will provide it. This is the new thing in the core. Source: Government of the Republic of Macedonia .MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we please keep this thread on topic? What does that law have to do with anything? We were discussing how to slim down the beginning of the lead sentence, and the precise legal status of Albanian has diddly squat to do with that. Fut.Perf. 12:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise, actually there is a point to touching upon Albanian within this discussion as its an interconnected issue. For a while that Albanian name was in lede and infobox. There are editors that held the view that law meant in its entirety Albanian was a 2nd official language over the whole country hence implying that is was a working government language. That is not the case, however it status has been upgraded significantly. So ramifications about having it in the lede or infobox do not suffice, but still it ought to be included somewhere visible to reflect that reality. Editors are ok with it going into a name/etymology section with the rest of the content. It better editors discuss respectfully of what the law outlines and how to deal with it in wikipedia, then have to deal with silly edit wars in future. Anyway there is support for your suggestions and whenever time permits transfer the content about multiple names into a separate name/etymology section. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the status of this country's languages, this article is in English. The infobox should be in English, as should be as much of the lede as possible. We can give multiple language versions of the name in the body or perhaps even in footnotes. Jonathunder (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a name section in the body.Resnjari (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Demonym(s) update[edit]

Now, that the Prespa agreement is ratified, we need to discuss the updating of the Demonym. We can use dual demonyms (North Macedonian, Macedonian), like in North Korea and South Korea, indicating the Nationality/Citizenship and the major population ethical group, or to use a single demonym (North Macedonian), like South Africa & South Sudan, indicating only the Nationality/Citizenship. Any thoughts? --StanProg (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's an issue that is going to change as Article 1 Section b of the agreement clearly states that the citizenship will be Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. Since this is too long to be used as a demonym, it's very likely that the demonym "Macedonian" will remain pending adding of a note that clarifies it's in fact "Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". "North Macedonian" has never been negotiated and can be safely rejected as original research.--Mastersource (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
You have a point. Maybe we should wait on that update. --StanProg (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
"Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" is the correct one. Xaris333 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
When referring to governmental bodies or other state institutions, the term North Macedonian replaces Macedonian (e.g. North Macedonian Foreign Ministry, North Macedonian Passports, North Macedonian Prime Minister). But when referring to the citizens, they will be called simply Macedonians, or Macedonians plus the necessary clarifications (e.g. Ethnic) if the article/section they are mentioned in, does refer to more than one Macedonian people (e.g. Ethnic Macedonians, Greek Macedonians), to avoid any possible semiological confusion. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 16:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Citizens should be called North Macedonians too, like the RSA's people are called South Africans and not (usually) just Africans. If we're talking about the ethnic group then just use simply "Macedonian". In the infobox at the top, I guess we can use both Macedonian and North Macedonian. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 19:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. North Macedonians are all the citizens of the country. Macedonians are the main ethnic group. In infobox let's keeps both ("Macedonian", "North Macedonian"). And maybe there should be created a page for North Macedonians (which will cover all the citizens of the country). And of course keep the page for ethnic Macedonians. Just like there's a page for Zulu people (one of South Africa's tribes) and for, for example South Africans, as a whole. The only comparison I can make for North Macedonia is with South Africa, and not South/ North Korea. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Note to everyone : WP:ARBMAC applies[edit]

Now that both parliaments have passed the compromise agreement, I personally favour a relatively swift name change on Wikipedia. However, seeing that some want to do it immediately, please keep in mind that WP:ARBMAC applies. The correct order is to first request an update of ARBMAC, and then of this and other related articles. Again, this is not a comment on the name as such, just a reminder that unilaterally pressing for a change prior to an update of ARBMAC is to put the horse before the cart. Jeppiz (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

My thought is that we should probably do the renaming of this main article via a simple RM, as it is likely to be fairly uncontroversial once the renaming has officially taken effect, but follow-up changes in other articles should be prepared via a more systematic RfC. Both could be started soon, as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. 17:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The name change here can be done as soon as the name change is finalized. As both parliaments have raitifed Prespa, this probably won't be long, but for now the country is still R.O. Macedonia/FYROM. Whether or not ARBMAC should not hinder this move, and should just be changed alongside. 18:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
In the meantime, some protection mechanism might still be useful. Other-language pages, e.g., de:Mazedonien are a mess right now, with constant back-and-forth piecemeal changes leading to such bizarre constructs such as “Macedonia, also Macedonia.” Is there any proper way to prepare a new page with all references (incl. in Macedonian and Albanian) updated to the newly-agreed name — and then drop that in place in one fell swoop once the name has really, officially changed? —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
My opinion is that this article should be fully protected until the ARBMAC is updated. There will be a lot of edits and reverts in the next few days. --StanProg (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes i agree wholeheartedly. Suggestion on my part, can admins place something in the protection template explaining to editors who might want to make edits on the name issue not to do so until such time as the finer details are sorted out and updated in ARBMAC. Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The note at the top of this talk page seems to make it pretty clear that if there is consensus that the name has changed, edits can be made to reflect that name change. I think we would be correctly applying ARBMAC to proceed with that understanding. If that process ends up being used as cover for unproductive POV-pushing or edit-warring behavior, that will be an issue for ARBMAC to address. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Language question[edit]

Can somebody help me sort this out about the languages? I want to do it the infobox like the infobox in the article for Spain, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain, the official and national language to be the Macedonian language, with a clarification note, and the Albanian to be as co-official, also with a footnote for clarification. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Use your Sandbox before making changes to the article. There you can experiment with changes until you find the correct way for the notes, and then you can place it in the article as a single editing Bes-ARTTalk 20:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Sashko1999 I've placed a request on the infobox talkpage [3] about extending a category so the other languages come up. Overall i think the rest is fine.Resnjari (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I need to make certain recommendations for improvement of this page. After the recent resolution of name dispute between Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece the name of this page should change immediately, as well as of all links that might direct to this page. Moreover, the government of Northern Macedonia has issued a diplomatic document to Greece where it clarifies that the term Nationality in Prespa agreement refers strictly to citizenship and not to national identity. As a result, any page referring to Macedonia Ethnic Groups should be renamed to "People identifying themselves as Macedonians/Citizens of Northern Macedonia as clearly stated in Prespa agreement.

Best Regards, Docm_kosmo

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2019[edit]

Should the footnote of Albanian Language be: "The Albanian language is co-official at a state level (excluding defense and monetary policy)? Because I read this article which states: "The measure boosts the use of the language at the national level, including in administrative, health, judicial, police, and other official matters."[1] 69.14.238.177 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  •  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2019[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus NOT TO MOVE at the present time. I also note a consensus to hold off on any sort of move request until February 8, 2019, at the earliest. Whoever proposes the next move request should note that we are not the news and must follow reliable sources (WP:RS). I imagine that such a further request will be successful. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


Republic of MacedoniaNorth Macedonia Greek ratified the agreement. --Sharouser (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I am a Greek. The agreement was ratified by the parliament but the protocol for NATO acccession of North Macedonia willl be ratified in a few days. The AgGreement stipulates that until this ratification the renaming does not come into effect. But, in fact the page can be renamed now.--Soccererer (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The question does not seem to be if but when. Do we wait for NATO? Certainly we must wait for ARBMAC, though it doesn't seem like it will be controversial. I would propose Republic of North Macedonia, with North Macedonia as an alternate name, then see how that plays out in terms of usage. At any rate, there are a few related discussions above, and perhaps we can consolidate them here under the RM. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait: The name refers to a proper noun that will become outdated, and therefore inaccurate, once the renaming takes effect. However, per nom, the agreement requires that the NATO accession protocol be ratified before the renaming becomes effective. We would be jumping the gun by moving the article now. Once the renaming officially takes effect and there is no longer such an entity as the Republic of Macedonia, I would support a move to North Macedonia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: I also support a move to North Macedonia. Waiting until the NATO protocol is ratified is one option. At the same time the constitution of the country has officially been ratified under the Prespa Agreement and now reads the Republic of North Macedonia so changing it now would probably not be controversialWeatherextremes (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    Have you seen the actual amended articles of the constitution? As far as I know, they may specify that the name does not go into effect until the Prespa agreement enters into force, or until the NATO protocol is ratified. Would like to know that actually. GeoEvan (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: I support the move. There is no sense to wait anymore. W00lyt (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    Just to add that according to this Greek article [4] the NATO protocol ratification by Greece would take place around two weeks from today. With Greece's ratification, the Prespa Agreement will come officially into force Weatherextremes (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Might the best solution be to create a new article? Let us not forget that there are Wikipedia articles for countries that no longer exist such as Kampuchea and Rhodesia, even if there were no boundary changes which coincided with the name change. Dovea (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's a good idea here. There's not only no boundary changes, but there's essentially no other change either. No change of regime, no change of constitution, no change of flag or other symbols; it's really just the name alone that changes. It's still, to all extents and purposes, the same state as before, not a new state on the same territory. If there were two articles, virtually all the contents would have to be duplicated between them. Fut.Perf. 09:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Comment: The agreement actually does forbid the use of the Vergina Sun as a public symbol by North Macedonia. However, it doesn’t change the political system of North Macedonia. I believe the differing political systems are why the Kampuchea & Rhodesia articles exist, so I don’t see any reason to create a new article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: I support the move. The process is 85% finished, I don't think there is a need to wait even longer. Macedonicus (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait: We should not ever be changing official names before they're officially changed (and actually, the text of the the Prespa agreement says it enters into force once the two countries' governments notify each other within two weeks of the last ratification - it says nothing about the NATO protocol having to be ratified first; see here [5] Article 20(4)).
    In addition to that, if the article is to be moved to North Macedonia rather than Republic of North Macedonia, since it's the norm for country articles to be located at the countries' common English short name (I presume Republic of Macedonia is a special case because of the need for a compromise in relation to the name controversy), then we need to first establish that North Macedonia is indeed the name in predominant use among reliable sources. My suggested procedure would be to (1) move to Republic of North Macedonia once reliable sources indicate that the name change is in effect (which they have not yet - on the contrary, see sources such as this one: [6]), and (2) if and when it becomes clear that the short form North Macedonia is the name predominantly used in reliable sources going forward, then and only then should the article be moved from Republic of North Macedonia to North Macedonia.
    GeoEvan (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Do we really need to over complicate things like that? Short name as per the agreement is North Macedonia. --Macedonicus (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Macedonicus here. IMO once the country is officially renamed to 'North Macedonia' we should just use the short name. — Tom(T2ME) 15:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The Prespa Agreement is very clear: The country's full name is "Republic of North Macedonia" and the country's short name is "North Macedonia". Plus, the demonym for state institutions, laws, papers, and bodies is "North Macedonian", and demonym for Citizens themselves is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia". --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we should take into account whether or not a move now would be controversial or not as well. We know for a fact that the constitution now reads Republic of North Macedonia and only there are only a few formalities until the agreement enters into force. What is the point of actually waiting? It will happen. The political process is over. Now it is only a matter of formalities. Weatherextremes (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait is the only allowed option per policy. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and changing the name of a country before it has actually changed is a definite no. Jeppiz (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes but the name has changed! That is my point. The constitution of the country now reads Republic of North Macedonia. What has not happened is the Prespa Agreement entering into full force. Weatherextremes (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Weatherextremes: Nope. It has not. The Legal procedures for the Name Change will be completed the moment the Greek Parliament ratifies the NATO Accession Protocol for the Republic of North Macedonia. Only then the Prespa Agreement goes into full force. Until then, it is still "Republic of Macedonia". This is due to eight Macedonian MPs of the Assembly of Macedonia (who defected from VMRO-DPMNE) conditioning the starting date of the Prespa Agreement on Macedonia's entry to NATO. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Most definitely Wait a little bit more per the comments above. It won't hurt anyone to take our time. We should think this good before we take the next move. Creating a new article for a same country with a different constitutional name seems pointless to be honest. But yeah, for the rename, maybe just wait a little bit more. — Tom(T2ME) 11:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move once we have evidence that the renaming has officially taken effect. This might be a matter of days or a few weeks, as far as I can see. GeoEvan's argument above, that we should first wait to see how English usage reacts in practice, is well taken; however, since the article is now titled according to the current full official name, we know for a fact that this current official name ("Republic of Macedonia") will no longer be correct, so whatever English usage does, the article can't really stay here. If we had gone for "Macedonia" pure and simple earlier, there'd be a case to make that there's a realistic possibility English usage will still continue to use that as an informal short form and that therefore the article should stay until there's evidence to the contrary, but with "Republic of Macedonia" I don't see that working. Fut.Perf. 12:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: It is de facto the new name of the republic. Chances that the agreement be undone are almost zero. Bes-ARTTalk 13:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: The Parliament of the country changed the constitution so now it is officially called North Macedonia.--Udha (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait / Comment: We know that both parliaments ratified the agreement. But can anyone with intimate knowledge of the constitutional proceedings of both countries and Prespa Agreement tell us when is actual date when it comes in force and Macedonia is officially renamed to Republic of North Macedonia? From what I understand the constitutional amendement has not yet been submitted to President of Macedonia for signature and generally these things come to force only when they are made public in list of laws. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@EllsworthSK: the Speaker of the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia, Talat Xhaferi, made it clear that this won't be a problem; if President Ivanov refuses to sign, the Speaker can do so in his place and then have it published in the Official Gazette. And so he did. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 17:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and commence a discussion on renewing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) with a move after consensus has been reached on updating MOSMAC.Resnjari (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: The change is de facto complete. Spare us the flame. Andreas George Skinner (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait: The agreement should first be signed by the President, and (according to rumors inside New Democracy), there is a chance that Pavlopoulos will resign over the agreement. I am here to contribute (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@I am here to contribute: sorry but these are Fake News. President Prokopis Pavlopoulos is in favor of the Prespa Agreement and New Democracy is just becoming the Greek version of VMRO-DPMNE: A populist political party. Current New Democracy president was exposed a month ago by German media that he told his European partners he is secretly in favor of the Prespa Agreement too but due to the upcoming elections, he doesn't want to admit it publicly. You get an idea of how unreliable this political party has become lately. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for ratification of NATO Accession Protocol, then move: the Prespa Agreement (and change of Constitutional name) goes in force only once all the legal procedures are completed (they complete with the ratification of the NATO accession protocol by Greece). According to the sources, Constitutional amendments for renaming the country into North Macedonia, are conditioned (per demand of the 8 defected VMRO-DPMNE MPs of the Macedonian Parliament) on the ratification of the NATO protocol by the Greek Parliament first. This move will be a mistake if done now, while the legal procedures are not completed yet. The country still is "Republic of Macedonia" officially. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 17:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Amendment to Macedonian constitution hasn't been published yet and they are still not in force. Also process of ratification of the Prespa Agreement is not finished. Wikipedia needs reliable sources say that the new country name has come into force. Aotearoa (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Aotearoa: sorry, the Amendments to Macedonian Constitution were already published in the country's Official Gazette as this is a condition for the Verbal Note to be sent by the Macedonian Foreign Ministry to Greece;s Foreign Ministry. The Name Change procedures will be completed, not with publication in the Official Gazette, but on the condition that the NATO Accession Protocol is ratified by Greece the coming weeks (per request of 8 Macedonian MPs from VMRO-DPMNE). --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move after all legal procedures are ended. Jingiby (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait till the renaming process ends. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move:. I am Greek. Let's wait a little for the secondary sources to update with the name and the legal procedure to end. The Greeks and the Macedonians had to wait 27 years for this to happen, surely some temper for this ravaged and warred to death article is prudent. Dante 80 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion is being linked to on outside resources (including Reddit) for the sake of brigading, take that into consideration.--Catlemur (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Hmm, that's weird. Why would people out there on Reddit believe this discussion is in need of canvassing? I know we had all sorts of external shenanigans back in 2009 when there was the question of moving to plain "Macedonia", but now, what's their beef? Which direction are they trying to push it in? Fut.Perf. 18:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Comment:: I am afraid this Move Request came early. The Prespa Agreement will go into full force by 8 February 2019, once all the legal procedures for the Constitutional Name changes are completed. [7]

  • The President of the Hellenic Republic, Prokopis Pavlopoulos, will sign the law on the Prespa Agreement and then it will be published this Monday 28 January 2019 in the country's Official Gazette and information will be sent to the NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg that it has been ratified.
  • Then the NATO's 29 permanent representatives will sign the North Macedonia accession protocol to the Alliance and this will be sent to the capitals of the 29 countries for ratification by their national Parliaments.
  • Then the Greek Parliament will ratify it first (and before all other national Parliaments) and, after Athen's ratification, a verbatim note will be sent to the Republic of Macedonia that Greece has ratified the NATO admission protocol.
  • Skopje will send to Athens and the United Nations Secretariat, information that the agreement comes into full force and at the same time Skopje will send a formal letter to all the UN member states and international organizations that the country's new name is North Macedonia and will be recognized by that name, from that day and on.
  • After that, the President of the Hellenic Republic will sign the NATO Accession Protocol of North Macedonia and send the relevant verbatim note to Washington and NATO (which is the guardian of the agreement) to complete the legal process.

--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the info. That's two weeks ahead then, just the right time frame for a good thorough move discussion. There shouldn't be a problem with keeping this RM open or on hold until then. Fut.Perf. 19:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move. Though it's not entirely improper to propose a move before official usage changes, it should go without saying that if the result is "move", the move itself should not be implemented until the name becomes official. Unlike with the Czech situation, it's unlikely there will be any controversy over the eventual move. ONR (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move I'm in favor of waiting until it is official, since that should not be long. Also I agree with GeoEvan above that the first step should be to "Republic of North Macedonia." For one thing, a snap shot of RS's right now would show a predominance of reports that the country changed its name to RNM, and few that have gotten around to referring to it as NM yet. In time, sources will likely shorten it to North Macedonia, but strictly speaking the full name would likely be the most common usage for the time being. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)*

Comment The constitution of North Macedonia has changed. It is de facto the new name. Here is an example of why the move needs to happen. This is from Israel's Foreign Affairs Ministry which from yesterday lists North Macedonia with the new name. So even though the Prespa Agreement has not entered into full force the name is already de facto North Macedonia [8] [9] So I am pretty sure that if Israel's diplomacy considers it safe to use the name from now they know something dont they? I mean they are a Foreign Affairs Ministry. Weatherextremes (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to look at the Macedonian Foreign Affairs Ministry since it is about them..... --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 20:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for official renaming and move when the country officially changes its name. Also Comment what should the demonym be? North Macedonian? Is the Macedonian language now the North Macedonian language? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The demonym is North Macedonian when referring to the state (eg. the North Macedonian Prime Minister). The deal says that the RoM cannot use the term 'Macedonia' to describe itself, it must use the new name North Macedonia. The citizens are described as "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia". The language, though, is just Macedonian. --Michail (blah) 01:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move In favour of moving but let's wait until the process has finished. --Michail (blah) 01:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree as the Prespa Agreement also involves a few others things like identity and language etc, and those have to be sorted out as well in terms of how to express those elements in relation to Wikipedia.Resnjari (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari: actually, the Prespa Agreement acknowledges the right of the Macedonians to their self-determination, and does not interfere to it. The only thing which the Prespa Agreement does in relation to self-determination and language name, is to add a clarification that they belong to the Slavic groups of people/families of languages and have no whatsoever relation with the Ancient Greek Kingdom and language. Thats all. So, there is no really any need for the change of expression here in Wikipedia regarding the ethnic group and their language: they will still be Macedonians and their language Macedonian, except for these articles where there is also mention of other Macedonian groups, such as Greek Macedonians. In that case, the common practice will still be continued, which is to add a clarification (e.g. Ethnic Macedonians, Greek Macedonians) to avoid causing the readers any semiological confusions. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm in favour of reaffirming that for any updates of MOSMAC regarding ethnic Macedonian identity and their language in light of the Prespa agreement. Its to prevent POV pushers and denialists who argue the contrary etc from restarting edit wars on many articles (as was done in the 2000s) on 'patriotic', nationalist and racist grounds in Wikipedia.Resnjari (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I see your point. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 13:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
As a member of Football wikiproject, it really not fun if people argue it was North Macedonian footballer or Macedonian footballer in lede, it definitely need to renew the MoS. Matthew hk (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment.Resnjari (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: Wikipedia was terrible all these years and now proves it once more. FYROM was the official name and Wikipedia accepted fully FYROM thesis on name rejecting every logical Greek argument calling us nationalists. There was no way to avoid using Republic of Macedonia everywhere according to WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2 guidlines. Now FYROM changed its name to north Macedonia and we still discussing if we move it or not. Even if Greece didn’t ratified the agreement FYROM has new constitutional name. There is no need to wait NATO, EU, Greece or any other third party to accept it. All these years the argument was that Republic of Macedonia is what they call themselves. So good job Wikipedia keep the provocative-for-Greeks-name as long as possible.Vagr7 (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not "terrible" because we accept the constitutional names of all countries. You will notice we also use the name Greece rather than FOVOG (Former Ottoman Vilayet of Greece)... If keeping the name provokes some racists then all the better, but that is not the motive. As has been made very clear in the discussion, the change takes place on February 8th, meaning that we of course should not move the page before per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Jeppiz (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vagr7: as a Greek myself, I disagree with your opinion that "Wikipedia is terrible" because it is not. And I don't understand why you want the country's name to change BEFORE it is actually changed. Haven't you read when the Name Change will take place officially? By 8 February 2019, when the Republic of Macedonia's authorities sent a letter to the United Nations and its 195 member states across the world, announcing that their new name will be Republic of North Macedonia from that day and on. Only then we can update the article name to reflect the new developments! Ratification by Greek Parliament did not bring the Prespa Agreement into full force. If you are Greek, please read this: "North Macedonia by 8 February: the next steps of the Prespa Agreement" --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with SilentResident. If anything I think Wikipedia's stance shows why this agreement is important. With the interim accord the whole world recognised it as Macedonia and this is simply reflected on Wikipedia. There is an argument to be made that Wikipedia facilitated this by de facto recognising it as Macedonia (although Wikipedia itself did not take a stance, it merely reflects the most widely used name), but there really is no need to have this discussion now. The general hysteria in Greece and North Macedonia will die out eventually and we can move on, but there is no need to rush to implement the name change before it has officially happened. I think the push is linked to what is happening in Greece right now where every 5 minutes we get a new news alert that X or Y person referred to North Macedonia simply as Macedonia, without mentioning that the name-change process has not officially been concluded yet. Good things to those who wait. --Michail (blah) 12:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the push is linked to what is happening in Greece right now where every 5 minutes we get a new news alert that X or Y person referred to North Macedonia simply as Macedonia, without mentioning that the name-change process has not officially been concluded yet. Good things to those who wait. This. Certain Greek media do this. So far, the newspapers "Kathimerini" and "Eleutheros Typos", and rightist "New Democracy" party are the ones complaining mostly about Zaev still calling his country simply "Macedonia" after Greek Parliament's ratification. These media and the party, are either populists, either ignorant, or both. And for this reason, I stopped taking them seriously. They crashed at the bottom of my esteem after the latest developments. Lately I am considering boycotting Kathimerini from being used as Reliable Source in Wikipedia's articles. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 13:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that the 8th of February date is only a rough estimate of when the procedure is expected to finish. I heard yesterday on Greece's national TV that the procedure will finish on the 10th of February. So for the time being the exact date is not certain Weatherextremes (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Weatherextremes: 6, 8, or 10 February, does it really matter? It is just a rough estimate and the dates are irrelevant. That's why sources say "By 8 February" and not "On 8 February". The Article name will be updated when right time comes. No need to rush it. But in mean time we can benefit from this waiting period, and open a discussion on Wikipedia matters relating to name change. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move Let's wait until the actual name change is implemented in February 2019.Jurryaany (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: I am afraid there are 2 issues with what you said: first of all, Wikipedia has most of its country articles using WP:COMMONNAME instead of WP:OFFICIALNAME for these countries because their shortnames (e.g. Greece instead of Hellenic Republic, China instead of People's Republic of China, and more) are distinctive enough to avoid semiological confusion among readers. However, the Republic of Macedonia's case is an exception to this rule due to sharing the same name with other geographical/political/historical entities (e.g. Macedonia (country) and Macedonia (region) or Macedonia (kingdom)) and for this, Wikipedia chose to use the official name "Republic of Macedonia" instead of the country's WP:COMMONNAME "Macedonia". Secondly, there are ongoing developments relating to the Prespa Agreement, which will have the Republic of Macedonia's constitutional name changed into "Republic of North Macedonia". IMO, past this point, there will be no point to keep calling the country with an official name that isn't its official one anymore. If the official name of the country is changed, Wikipedia will have to be updated to reflect on these developments. However, the old official name Republic of Macedonia won't disappear; it will still be mentioned in the relevant articles, to inform the readers about the country's history and past names. But I do NOT think it is necessary for Wikipedia to keep "Republic of" in the new name for that country (Republic of North Macedonia) to distinguish it from other Macedonias, since the short term "North" is more than enough for this. It is safe to say that the "Republic of" can be dropped without causing any semiological confusion among the readers. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 15:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you, but that is a case for moving the article to the more common name of Macedonia (country), not the less common name of North Macedonia.  AjaxSmack  16:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: I don't understand how "Republic of Macedonia" will be WP:COMMONNAME after the implementation has finished - the agreement itself explicitely states that "Republic of Macedonia" will no longer be used to describe the state. The common name could be Macedonia (even though the deal itself forbids North Macedonia to refer to itself as simply Macedonia), but even then the process which saw the present title moved to Republic of Macedonia as opposed to just Macedonia would see the page moved to North Macedonia, even if the article begins with "Macedonia, officially the Republic of North Macedonia". --Michail (blah) 15:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't predict anything because I don't have a crystal ball. All I'm asking is to follow policy, i.e. follow what reliable sources use. I understand that my opinion is unpopular, and based on the consensus so far, I think the article can be moved summarily (i.e. without another RM request) on or around February 8. However, I did want to register my objection to ignoring policy.  AjaxSmack  16:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: I do understand your objection to moving it prematurely. I do not understand your objection to moving it to North Macedonia. Per WP:NCMAC, the page title for the country is the country's official name. Unless WP:NCMAC is revisited in its entirety, moving it to North Macedonia is the only logical thing to do. It has nothing to do with crystal balling. It's simply a case of replacing the official name in accordance with WP:NCMAC. --Michail (blah) 01:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I have absolutely no objection to moving it to North Macedonia. My objection is to moving it today or at some predetermined date in the future. As User:Cinadon36 implores below, "Wait until mainstream media start using the term, which I believe won't take too long." I would merely substitute "reliable sources" for "mainstream media", but there's not a great deal of differennce in this case.  AjaxSmack  23:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack:Wikipedia country entries are vital articles of Geography. Your examples about the two Koreas and Taiwan Vs China are just wrong. Both Koreas claim the whole peninsula in their official name, but in terms of geography they occupy the north and south part respectively. Same for Taiwan that could never be classified as “China”. East Timor is in fact east Timor. We also commonly refer to the USA as America , but to avoid confusion with the continent America, we use the official name of the country. Wikipedia must provide accurate and up-to-date geographical information and not create confusions. Keeping the same entry “Macedonia” or “the Republic of Macedonia” for the soon to be Republic of North Macedonia: 1) Would not take a recent international treaty into account 2) Would provide inaccurate information regarding the official name and its accepted alternative short form (Republic of North Macedonia and North Macedonia) 3) create confusion with the wider geographical region of Macedonia and the historical region of Macedonia as well. [Shelop]
"Soon to be" is not "accurate and up-to-date"', it's crystal ball gazing and against policy. Follow the sources.  AjaxSmack  16:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
"soon to be" is accurate and up-to-date because it refers to a treaty that is subject to international law! [Shelop] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelop (talkcontribs) 18:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: As a citizen of North Macedonia and ethnic Macedonian (and former nationalist) I strongly disagree with your opinion. The Prespa Agreement is here for a reason, to clarify things - not create more confusions. My country will be known as North Macedonia worldwide and Wikipedia will reflect this, 'Republic of Macedonia' as a name will exist only in historical references and our memories. Cheers to a brighter future! Macedonicus (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
"My country will be known as..." Congratulations. We can move the article then.  AjaxSmack  00:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Macedonicus: Round of applause brother. I am also all these things Macedonicus is as well! And I agree, nationalism should die already. That's the reason why I also need to disagree with you @AjaxSmack:. — Tom(T2ME) 17:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I am Greek and I am proudly standing with both fellow Greek editor Michail, and fellow Macedonian editors Macedonicus and Tom. Like how Macedonicus said, I do believe the Prespa Agreement is meant to acknowledge the realities in the region - and mutual compromises had to be made to reach it and break the never-ending cycle of nationalism: both sides of the dispute acknowledge with the Prespa Agreement that no side can monopolize the name - for example, Greece and Greek Macedonians acknowledge that they cannot deny the right of the Macedonians to their self-determination, and the Republic of Macedonia acknowledges that it cannot deny that there are other Macedonias in the region such as the Greek. Wikipedia already acknowledges these realities but now the involving sides starting acknowledging it, and is why it is so good to simply ignore.
Now that the Prespa agreement is a reality, it is only natural that Wikipedia reflects upon it - All we need now is to have the readers's convenience as our priority: update Wikipedia to reflect on developments around the world, and keep things here tidy. This is better than sticking on outdated naming policies and thus, causing even more semiological confusions. I am certain that ignoring the Prespa Agreement and keeping naming policies unchanged in Wikipedia with the pretext of WP:COMMONNAME is only bound to cause more problems besides semiological confusion: 1) inconsistency about which name is really the official one, (since everyone will be seeing that there are 2 countries bearing the same name: the Republic of North Macedonia in the real life, and the Republic of Macedonia in Wikipedia), and 2) disparance among newer and older editors who are stuck with new and old POVs respectively (which may possibly lead to edit wars and page move wars). The best way to avoid all these problems altogether is to simply update Wikipedia's content to reflect on the new reality, which, from the looks of it, everyone is acknowledging already. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
A minor issue, which I do not know if it was discussed above, is whether the new name must be North Macedonia or Republic of North Macedonia. or example, in English the term Czech Republic is used instead of Czechia but SLovakiais used instead of Slovak Republic. In this case I suspect this is relevant to the difficult creation of a single word for the land of the Czechs. I want to point out though, that the word Macedonia means many different things and different pages exist, each devoted to a specific use of Macedonia, so using just North Macedonia will be insufficient in my opinion. This is true for Greek readers. I do not know what would be more comprehensible for other languages.--Soccererer (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Both "North Macedonia" and "Republic of North Macedonia" are perfectly fine and free of issues that may affect Czechia or Slovakia. But a name that has fewer words in it is more convenient for the editors to use, so North Macedonia which only has 2 words is much more preferable than the 4-word Republic of North Macedonia. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no need for 'Republic of North Macedonia', simply 'North Macedonia' is fine. There is no other entity going by that name except the country/republic. I don't know why we are complicating things. — Tom(T2ME) 19:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
It just bad to use Czech and Slovak to compare with this RM. Why it is not Czechia , because it is not common name, why it is Slovakia, because it is common name. Just crystal ball on the common name was North Macedonia, Macedonia or else. Matthew hk (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you proposing that, should Macedonia be the most commonly-used name after the name change happens, that this article should be titled simply Macedonia? I understand the criticism of moving the article before the change takes effect, but moving it simply to Macedonia is a direct contradiction to WP:NCMAC. --Michail (blah) 01:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
It is WP:Crystal ball to guess the new common name of the country, which Macedonia or North Macedonia are possible. I already said above WP:NCMAC need to be renewed and this RM need to wait to avoid crystal ball. BTW, Republic of North Macedonia is unlikely as a common name, even it is official name. Since people and media call South Korea as Korea (which neither South and North Korea had the direction in their official name) If media still use Macedonia as the common name, then wiki user can still decide the new disambiguation affix for the country in the new WP:NCMAC, which North Macedonia or Macedonia (country) may be option. Matthew hk (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
If the common names are "Macedonia" and "North Macedonia", then I am afraid there isn't much of an option on which one to use: due to the naming dispute's nature, the first one cannot be used by Wikipedia even if it is still a common name, while the latter one helps resolve this dispute which caused so much damage to Wikipedia due to all these edit wars, and I am sure the editors will prefer to keep things clarified and in line with Prespa Agreement to avoid the semiological confusions of the past that have dragged this issue for so long, both inside Wikipedia as well as outside. We have had enough of these disputes. North Macedonia is our chance to have this finally settled once and for all. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 16:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
It still crystal ball to guess Republic of North Macedonia will be official or not, as only half of the legal and bureaucratical process had been done. Matthew hk (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to North Macedonia I am neutral on when the move takes place, but I hope that with Prespa, we have seen the last of the naming dispute and we can improve the article without the naming dispute overwhelming us. --Marianian(talk) 23:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move Move, since the agreement is official and confirmed by both countries. --GT3-RSwiki(talk) 02:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait with move to North Macedonia, but change intro sentence now. Yes, any move should not happen until the new name has come into effect (presumably after the NATO invitation.) But burying any mention of North Macedonia way at the bottom of the intro section (and paragraphs after detailed discussions of both Republic of Macedonia and FYROM in the meantime does not seem appropriate, either. It’s going to be North Macedonia; that’s way more important than the all-but-abolished FYROM construct. North Macedonia should be mentioned in some fashion no later than the second sentence. Otherwise, we look like we are somehow opposed to the agreed-upon name. —ThorstenNY (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @ThorstenNY: I agree with this in principle, but it might be helpful to workshop some proposed language for the change. It would only be needed for the next week or so, but in the meantime, this article is getting a lot of traffic. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future but it seems like the whole name-related issue with the Prespa Agreement is just a big farce. People in 'Macedonia' continue calling their country by that name and so do even the politicians who were the main protagonists of and signed the agreement in their public speeches. The main slogan in favour of the name-change referendum was 'Yes for European Macedonia' (not 'Yes for European North Macedonia'), the common name they use after the country's parliament concluded the constitutional changes on 11 January was the same and no change can be observed even after the same was done by the other side's parliament on 25 January (on the other hand, there is no serious change in Greece either but that's not equally relevant to the point). Those (in particular Macedonicus, Tomica, Michail and SilentResident) claiming that the main purpose of the Prespa Agreement is to lessen the nationalism in a part of the world where there is no division between mine and yours but everything is only mine are right but the reality is that nothing in the world in the 21st century can change the mind of 7,7 billion people to accept, for most of them, a longer name for a country in their colloqual language. Despite the use of 'North Macedonia' in the international relations (which in most cases until now was 'FYROM'), like it or not, the country's common name will probably remain simply 'Macedonia' (no crystall ball to say it 'surely' will but 'probably' describes reality) and its citizens will be logically called 'Macedonians' (nobody would seriously use after-the-slash clarification from Article 1 Section b of the agreement). This is not because people want to deny the Prespa Agreement but because they tend to rationalize their style so that it's safe for them to use 'Macedonia' for 'North Macedonia' when there is no other country-level name containing the term 'Macedonia'. How this affects WP:COMMONNAME is pretty clear and waiting for it to apply in this case might last infinetly long and the renaming of the article should outrightly be made according to WP:OFFICIALNAME.--Mastersource (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait For now this is WP:CRYSTAL. Assuming the stipulations are realized, and it also becomes the common name (see also: "Czechia", oh wait nobody says that), the time to move will be in the future. --Calthinus (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Calthinus: - Again, how is this WP:CRYSTAL? Per WP:NCMAC we use what the country calls itself for the name of this article. The country will no longer call itself 'Republic of Macedonia' once this is formally concluded. It will call itself 'Republic of North Macedonia', or 'North Macedonia' for short. People also colloquially call the Republic of Ireland simply Ireland, but the Republic is still on Republic of Ireland to avoid confusion. --Michail (blah) 12:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92: - It would be nice perhaps if Wikipedia's policy was to agree to current national governments' proposals but that is not what we do. And by the way on some issues that is a serious blessing -- as an editor active in the Israel/Palestine area I am especially grateful because otherwise we would have to mediate between different governments' naming policies. It would never end, let me tell you. Anyhow, that in mind, it's WP:CRYSTAL because our actual policy is to prefer what name in common use in the English language. When and if English speakers come to adopt "North Macedonia" to speak of this article's subject, then that is what Wikipedia will do. The Czech Republic has officially declared its name is "Czechia" not "the Czech Republic", but when speaking English, English speakers have not changed. Government agreements in one government versus the governments of two coming to an agreement (Greece, RoM) does not make a difference. Not even in the Czech Republic itself do English speakers call it Czechia in English [[10]]. The policy is clear.--Calthinus (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
In fact, we had to have a moratorium to stop further attempts to change the name of the Czech Republic to Czechia on Wikipedia. [[11]] --Calthinus (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Calthinus: I understand all that. All this move to North Macedonia would do is ensure that the article complies with NCMAC. Czechia is a bit of an unfortunate example. No one is arguing that it should be moved there because there is no need for disambiguation. There isn't a wider area called Czechia, and there isn't a 30-year dispute going on. A better example would be Ireland, which is listed not on Ireland but on Republic of Ireland. We already have Naming Conventions - Macedonia and as it stands we use what the country calls itself for the name of the article. We can reopen the discussion about whether NCMAC is relevant, but this is not the place to do this. The request to move this article is solely so that it complies with the spirit of NCMAC. It's not crystal balling to expect the article to be moved once the formalities are over. Both parliaments have approved it, and the country's official name will indeed be North Macedonia. Keeping it at Republic of Macedonia would contradict NCMAC. To quote the current rules we have in place: "Republic of Macedonia" is an acceptable disambiguator because it is also the self-identifying official (constitution) name. --Michail (blah) 13:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92: The debate is between "North Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia". My current vote is effectively a keep "Republic of Macedonia". I am not saying adopt simple "Macedonia" -- which seems to be what you're arguing against I think?--Calthinus (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Calthinus: No, I'm saying that since per the current NCMAC we use the official constitutional name, and since the official constitutional name has been changed, that is what this page should be called. Republic of Macedonia will be neither the official name, nor the common name. 'Macedonia' is currently the common name, not 'Republic of Macedonia'. Why would we keep 'Republic of Macedonia' as the name of the article if it is neither common nor official? I hope this clears it up. --Michail (blah) 14:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, yeah it does, and that's fair.--Calthinus (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92: Calthinus has a very strong point. We don't rely on how someone dares to call itself but what's the most common practice in the English language and that's what WP:COMMONNAME is about. Ukrainians decided to use 'Kyiv' as an official English translation for their capital but that wasn't accepted here and won't be in near future as overwhelmingly the most common name in the English language is 'Kiev'. On the other hand, the use of official names such like 'Republic of Macedonia' or 'Republic of North Macedonia' is stipulated in WP:OFFICIALNAME. I really don't know how did someone come up with 'North Macedonia' when it wasn't even discussed in the negotiations (the negotiated name was 'Republic of North Macedonia') and Macedonian policiticians, including those who signed the agreement, still insist on the use of 'Macedonia' in their public speeches (see my extensive comment above). The question here is whether to rename the article to 'Republic of North Macedonia' per WP:COMMONNAME or to 'Macedonia' per WP:OFFICIALNAME. Considering that the use of the name 'Macedonia' has been previously opposed by users contending that it has multiple meaning other than the country (in the same way as Republic of Ireland), it's very logical that we'll continue using an official name for this country, that is 'Republic of North Macedonia'. The name 'North Macedonia' does not qualify for now and it's a crystal-ball reasoning if it does one day in the future.--Mastersource (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
This conversation is slowly descending into the very definition of the word 'punctilio'. I think you misunderstand the discussion if you think it's a choice between North Macedonia and Macedonia. This violates NCMAC. It's a discussion between North Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia, the current and former constitutional names. Please read my last comment above. We can argue about when the move needs to happen (for the record I voted to wait until it actually formally happens), but to accuse people of crystal balling is a bit misleading. We are not discussing whether Macedonia will agree to rename itself North Macedonia - it has already done that. And it has changed its constitutional name. The 'move' side is arguing that since NCMAC uses the constitutional name for the article on the country, this article should reflect that. Starting a discussion that the article should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME is a whole other beast and not the topic of this discussion. --Michail (blah) 15:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92: It's a discussion between North Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia, the current and former constitutional names. This is what you wrote and here comes the main misunderstanding. The constitutional name was changed from 'Republic of Macedonia' to 'Republic of North Macedonia'. Comparing 'North Macedonia' to 'Republic of Macedonia' is like comparing apples and oranges. I don't say that the article should not be renamed but that 'North Macedonia', which is not its new official name as it's 'Republic of North Macedonia', is inappropriate and the right move should be to 'Republic of North Macedonia' because the article's name complies with WP:OFFICIALNAME rather than WP:COMMONNAME (another example is Republic of Ireland). If there is an argument that the Prespa Agreement was signed primarily to resolve disambiguation about the multiple meanings of the name 'Macedonia' and it opens a way for this article's name change from an official to a common name (like most of the country names), then there is clearly a haste and evident contextual misunderstanding since the agreement just stimulates 'North Macedonia' to become more common than 'Macedonia'. Once it happens, we can move the then-named article 'Republic of North Macedonia' to 'North Macedonia'. For the time being, renaming this directly to 'North Macedonia' would be a mistake as the most common name in the English language is still 'Macedonia'. Do you get the difference?--Mastersource (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mastersource:. You are mistaken. There is no such "official name" as "Republic of Ireland". The constitutional name of Ireland is, simply, "Ireland". There is no official "Republic of". The "Republic of" was added by Wikipedia for the simple expedience of distinguishing between "Ireland" (the country) and "Ireland" (the island. (You can refer to the looooooong discussion of said matter for background.) "Republic of" was added to Macedonia's name for the simple expedience of distinguishing "Macedonia" (modern) from "Macedonia" (ancient) and "Macedonia" (Greek region). With "North Macedonia" no such artificial or expedient remedy is required and "North Macedonia" is quite sufficient to distinguish the modern country from all other uses of "Macedonia". But the Irish example simply shows an artificial "Wikipedia-based" solution and not any sort of precedent that we must follow here. --Taivo (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: I apologize for being wrong about the constitutional name of Ireland but that doesn't drastically change my position here. 'North Macedonia' might be sufficient to make the disambiguation clearer but it's simply not the name negotiated in the agreement and still not more common than 'Macedonia', and that's why those contesting it in this discussion have a strong point. We all know that the naming dispute was about the disambiguation and many see the Prespa Agreement as a cure for that issue but it doesn't happen overnight. The crystal-ball argument does also hold since we don't know if 'North Macedonia' prevails as more common name over 'Macedonia' in the English language. This might happen in near future but might not and that's why 'Republic of North Macedonia' could be a temporary choice before 'North Macedonia' fully replaces 'Macedonia' in its common usage. After all, the whole care is very sensitive because it might open many similar naming issues elsewhere on the English Wikipedia. For me personally, it doesn't change too much how the article will be renamed ('Republic of North Macedonia' or 'North Macedonia'). My main concern is that this might evolve in endless discussions on other articles. (You don't need to answer back as our lines are clear. I have other more important stuff to do and hope that will save your time as well.)--Mastersource (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mastersource: 'North Macedonia' might be sufficient to make the disambiguation clearer but it's simply not the name negotiated in the agreement - actually article 1.3a of the Agreement states that the official name of the country is Republic of North Macedonia and the short official name is North Macedonia. --Michail (blah) 17:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: well said! :-) --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 16:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move as per WP:OFFICIALNAME. The Greek and the North Macedonian parliaments voted in favour, the Greek one ratified the agreement, we are on to the NATO acceptance process. Also, the "Macedonia" should not appear as a per WP:COMMONNAME because firstly, beats the purpose and secondly since the name is similar to e.g. South Africa, none call this country just Africa. This argument is just invalid. Othon I (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
You quoted official name and common name wiki policy, but your reasoning are opposing the policy your quoted. Please see also Wikipedia:Article titles. Matthew hk (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying to not use a common name. All I am saying is that if we leave the common name as "Macedonia" it beats the purpose of the Prespa Agreement. The name "North Macedonia" which is the official from now on should be enough. Othon I (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
"Beats the purpose" is a red herring. Whose "purpose"? Whatever purposes the Greek and Macedonian governments had in making that agreement is quite irrelevant to us on Wikipedia. Our purpose here is to write an encyclopedia that reflects the facts out in the real world and the way our reliable sources speak about those facts, and if they should continue to use plain "M." in practice, then that would remain our "common name" for Wikipedia purposes. Fut.Perf. 10:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for official change name & a comprehensive RfC per ARBMAC 2 Motion of 17 June, and only then move to North Macedonia. First of all, the country's constitutional name has not yet changed. According to the recent constitutional changes in Skopje, the latter will be activated only after the ratification of the country's NATO accession protocol by the Greek parliament. Therefore, the Prespa Agreement is not yet in force, and the country's constitutional name (Republic of Macedonia) has not yet changed. This has been confirmed today by a statement of the Greek Alternate Foreign Minister, Giorgos Katrougkalos, to a Greek radio station; he stated verbatim that the provisions of the Prespa Agreement are not yet activated (answering to a journalist's question why Zaev continues to call his country "Macedonia" and not "North Macedonia"). Secondly, I am not 100% sure that the current procedure is in full accord with ARBMAC 2 Motion of 17 June. From a practical point of view, I believe that the Motion in question has a particular wisdom that should not be ignored: from my past experience (being inter allia the party who initiated ARBMAC 2), I have concluded that on this topic even the most uncontroversial issues somehow become controversial (does this RfC look, until now, consensual and uncontroversial?!). I thus believe that the RfC desicion which will be taken should be as comprehensive and as well crafted as possible. There is no reason to hurry; the new reality will be imprinted in Wikipedia, but this should be done in a way guaranteeing that there will be no fragmentary and contradicting decisions. Let's at least once, on this topic, do the things without a hurry and in a proper way.Yannismarou (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi all, to those who remember me. I was also a party in the marathon discussion that lead to ARBMAC 2 current naming conventions so I guess this is our #10yearchallenge. So believe me when I say that moving any article should not be taken lightly. At least now there is discussion and not an out of the blue forced admin action. Make no mistake, the internet is not as it was 10 years ago and the world is also waiting for Wikipedia to choose for them!. Some in Greece are already preempting this move [12] Shadowmorph ^"^ 15:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Wait (not too long), then move. To the matter at hand I think common sense dictates to move, after the dust settles, to North Macedonia if there is consensus on that. North Macedonia is preferable to Republic of North Macedonia as per WP:PRECISE. Macedonia (country) is the only other alternative in my view, but I fail to see how it would gather support if it didn't the last time. I recall that it was considered bad form. My "not too long" clause pertains to the reasons found in the essay WP:NOW. Searching the policies I saw in WP:NAMECHANGES that we should look with some sensibility at reliable sources after the change and what wordings would they choose. However, browsing the news, I saw a hesitation to accept the name change as de facto and most news outlets use the term "North Macedonia" not as a current name but as a future one, while seemingly uttering: "Wait, is this for real?". TLDR, all I say is things could still go ...south! Shadowmorph ^"^ 15:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. WP:MODERNPLACENAME could also aply: For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Shadowmorph ^"^ 15:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait then move to North Macedonia. Per various comments above. "North Macedonia" because the name is unique and "Republic of" therefore becomes unnecessary. --Taivo (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until the NATO protocol is ratified and then move to Republic of North Macedonia. The country has changed its constitutional name from 'Republic of Macedonia' to 'Republic of North Macedonia', while the Prespa Agreement doesn't automatically make 'North Macedonia' a more common name than 'Macedonia' but paves the way for it to happen in near future. Once 'North Macedonia' tips the scales, the article can no longer be compliant to WP:OFFICIALNAME and the title can move under WP:COMMONNAME from 'Republic of North Macedonia' to 'North Macedonia'. Moving directly to 'North Macedonia' would be a big mistake because it's neither an official and common name (see my preceding comments above for more extensive explanation).--Mastersource (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until mainstream media start using the term, which I believe won't take too long. Euronews has started using the term already [13].Cinadon36 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Macedonia. It seems this page will be moving to "North Macedonia" within the next few weeks which is understandable, but I do believe that this article should have been "Macedonia" all along and should be under that name until the common name becomes "North Macedonia", if ever. We weren't bound by the UN provisional reference here so I don't see why we immediately act on the Prespa Agreement passing. --Local hero talk 17:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I concur with you, but geopolitics of a silly name dispute resulted in a name change. My preference would be a plain Macedonia or the current name Republic of Macedonia. People in the country itself don't refer to the place as "North Macedonia". Its highly doubtful it will be adopted in common speech by ethnic Macedonians or even Albanians, which in Albanian the new name is a longer form due to phonetic rules i.e Maqedonia e Veriut, yet alone Republika e Maqedonisë së Veriut. Makedonija and Maqedonia will still be what the place is called in the country by both ethnic Macedonians and Albanians regardless of these new formalities.Resnjari (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Right, but more importantly the common name in English is Macedonia. It may some day become "North Macedonia". But only when that occurs should this article move to "North Macedonia". I think everyone is eager for this dispute to be over, but I firmly believe Wikipedia policy favors having this article be titled simply "Macedonia" - now and for the foreseeable future. So that's my apparently dissenting opinion. --Local hero talk 21:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but this time people will say both countries signed an agreement. Macedonia without any qualifiers is the sane choice, but as you know the ugliness of the issue has generated an energy of many of those who are against that formula due to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS reasons based on 'patriotic', nationalist and racist grounds that deny ethnic Macedonian identity, language and statehood existence. The best one can do is probably delay it being changed on Wikipedia until proper formalities of recognition are done at the UN etc around mid year.Resnjari (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait then move to North Macedonia when the Republic of Macedonia is officially recognized as Northern Macedonia. Currently the UN lists the country as FYR Macedonia, and Macedonian government websites[14] still use the name 'Republic of Macedonia'. Until the UN or any other supranational body uses the name officially, the page should remain as it is. DanielEnnisTV 19:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In principle I'd say to move to North Macedonia once the paperwork is all complete and the new name is being used.
But I have process concerns. And on a topic of this historic sensitivity I think process is important.
The normal expectation is that the move of an article on a country would have knock-on effects on hundreds of articles that refer to that country, whose text would change to reflect the new name of the article. It makes sense, and is good for Wikipedia, if these sorts of discussions are held in a single place or a small number of places, rather than being argued from first principles on every article independently. But since Arbcom has mandated a process with a 30-day RFC and 3 admin closers, and this discussion does not meet that standard, I would wonder what our position would be if and when editors propagate the change to other articles.
As such, if the close here is that the article is to be moved, then I think it's important that the closer should be absolutely clear on the scope of the decision, specifically considering whether editors on other articles are allowed to break the current (and explicitly binding) text of WP:MOSMAC to replace the names "Republic of Macedonia" and "Macedonia" with "North Macedonia".
But it would be better IMO for us to either push as soon as reasonable and practical to an RFC of the style mandated by Arbcom last June, or to establish (with Arbcom's consent as required) that such an RFC is no longer necessary. Kahastok talk 19:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Well said Kahastok! There is also a few other issues about the usage of North Macedonian in terms of citizenship vs Macedonian in terms of ethnicity for articles about biographies of people + the name of language etc which the Prespa agreement also touched upon. Do we reaffirm the current guidelines for MOSMAC on these kinds of things or do we update them. If its an update how would we reflect the Prespa agreement on these issues in proper way on Wikipedia etc. I feel that editors are not discussing these things and they will be left as an open question in future. I really think we should have a discussion open for updating MOSMAC as a whole instead of focusing on just the name etc. Otherwise every little thing will be contested on many articles which have the potential for endless edit wars.Resnjari (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we definitely still need that more comprehensive RfC, and I agree with Kahastok that we should soon get it started. Another open issue, in addition to those Resnjari hinted at, is to what extent and in what contexts we'll continue to use the old name historically, i.e. when speaking of events between 1992 and 2019. I suppose Kiro Gligorov will continue to have been "president of Macedonia", not "president of North Macedonia". What about a person born in the country in 1995, would they be "born in Bitola, Macedonia", "born in Bitola, North Macedonia", "born in Bitola, in what is now the soon-to-be former Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", or what? Fut.Perf. 20:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari: You should have read the Prespa Agreement which resolves this "silly" (as you called it) naming dispute, it doesn't hurt. As you will find out by reading the Agreement and its provisions, that only the aspects regarding official state names, state citizenship and state demonyms, education and diplomatic relations/cooperation framework are configured by it. With simple words: Macedonian Language stays Macedonian Language, Macedonian identity stays Macedonian identity and Macedonian people stay Macedonian people. That's all.
And I will repeat here that the Prespa Agreement's purpose isn't to configure the language and identity, but to recognize the people's right to self-determination and acknowledge what Wikipedia has done already for a long time now: that in the geographical region of Macedonia, exist multiple Macedonias, multiple Macedonian groups of different backgrounds and ethnicities, histories and cultures.
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I am afraid we can not change names for the 1991-2019 period. Republic of Macedonia will have to be used for that time period, not Republic of North Macedonia, provided that we mention it in a historical context (e.g. "In 1991, the Republic of Macedonia formed diplomatic relations with Bulgaria". But when we refer to its past from a modern scope, then sure, the new name is better to use. An example: "The Republic of North Macedonia, maintains its diplomatic relations with Bulgaria since their establishment in 1991". --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 20:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly why we need to discuss updates to MOSMAC via an RfC to either reaffirm currant wiki usage or update guidelines. Otherwise little flareups can have the potential for endless edit warring on articles. Another concern i have is when citizenship + ethnicity is used in certain contexts side by side. i.e so and so person is a North Macedonian Macedonian. Would we need a second use of Macedonian or do we scrap North in such contexts for Wikipedia. It’s things like this that need to be worked out so editors don't get themselves into strife or that edit wars don't happen and waste the time of administers in policing Balkan articles.Resnjari (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
i.e so and so person is a North Macedonian Macedonian A person can be a "Macedonian of North Macedonia", or "North Macedonia's Macedonian", in the same way we would say an "Albanian of North Macedonia", or "North Macedonia's Albanian". It isn't as complicated as you may think. Both are valid terms since the Prespa Agreement and the constitutional amendments state that the citizens can be called Macedonians of North Macedonia or Citizens of North Macedonia. The ethnic demonyms however remain unchanged for the ethnic groups living there: just "Albanian" for Albanian people and "Macedonian" for Macedonian people. EDIT: oh, and the citizenship part is where a discussion can be useful, as the media appear to have reported that the Prespa's definition of "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" can apply to both Macedonians and Albanians and would not imply in any way that the Albanians are not Albanian, as it is used in the sense of citizenship, and thus, when saying "Macedonian" (citizen), to mean both the Macedonians (ethnic group) and the Albanians. What a headache. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻  (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 21:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that the issue of using the terms for citizenship/ethnicity side by side could be resolved in a similar way to the use of the terms "Bosnian"/"Bosniak", where the first term refers to citizenship and the second to ethnicity. I think that the respective terms should be "Macedonian"/"Macedonian (ethnic)". I know that the comparison is not perfect, since the case now is that the 2 terms are actually identical, but it can be used as a rough guide. So we don't ever say "Bosnian Bosniaks", but we do use the terms Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats, where the "Bosnian" part refers to citizenship obviously. In the same sense we can use the terms Macedonian Albanians or Macedonian Turks, but "Macedonian Macedonians (ethnic)" wouldn't make sense, would it? On the other hand we should make sure to use the "Macedonian (ethnic)" in every case that the term clearly represents ethnicity, similarly to the term "Bosniak". I know, it sounds like a headache, but after all it doesn't change a lot on the terms that are used to describe the people. Argean (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I also agree that the Prespa Agreement is a guide and as such MOSMAC will need an update so as to leave no ambiguities. In regards to terminology on ethnic groups, i,e Macedonian Albanian(s) is acceptable for Albanians, but North Macedonian Albanian(s) is not. During negotiations in the Macedonian parliament for the name change Albanian parties argued for the term Macedonian to also be interpretated in terms of citizenship for non ethnic Macedonian communities (with no geographic qualifiers of "north", just Macedonian). It was a concession that Zaev agreed to that secured Albanian votes that allowed the name change to pass. Any attempts to have North Macedonian Albanian(s) as a formula for use in wiki is POV and i strongly oppose it and possibly others who edit Albanian related topics may hold the same view. The form Albanians of North Macedonia would depend on the context. Its why i keep saying that MOSMAC needs to be updated via consensus before any hasty changes are made.Resnjari (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
100% agree on updating MOSMAC. And yes "North Macedonian Albanians" is obviously not acceptable because there is no nationality term "North Macedonian". "Albanians of North Macedonia" on the other hand is probably acceptable and valid according the agreement that defines the term "Macedonia/citizen of North Macedonia" as the accepted term for nationality. A good analogy with the "Bosnian" paradigm would be the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina that is used interchangeably with Bosnian Serbs. Argean (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Move The country now calls itself New Macedonia. I think we need to move this as it is its new name. Felicia (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Opinion We should move Macedonian cuisine too. --Koreyak (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move Let's try to stick to the facts. Honestly the answers for every single question that I read above can be found in Prespa agreement itself. First of all, the agreement has been officially ratified by both parties but hasn't officially entered into force yet. It will eventually when the government of the Republic of Macedonia acknowledges that the Greek government has notified them of completing all the steps that are necessary for the ratification. This should happen within 2 weeks after the ratification itself, so de facto the name of the country will inevitably change very soon. Obviously waiting for this is only a typicality, but let's wait just in order to avoid any misunderstandings. After the agreement comes into force, obviously there is no other choice than to move the article to North Macedonia, since according to the agreement itself all the currently used terms including "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia", "FYR Macedonia", "FYROM", will "cease to be used to refer to the Second Party in any official context". Obviously there is no reason to rename the article to the "Republic of North Macedonia", because "North Macedonia" will be the official short name of the country and it doesn't cause any ambiguity as the current short name does. I don't get the comparisons to the "Czech Republic"/"Czechia" issue because they never changed their constitutional name, they just decided to officially adopt a short name for the country, since they never had one before, but the use of this short name has never become popular, at least until now. I would rather draw more comparisons to the "Swaziland"/"Eswatini" case, where both the constitutional and the short form of the country name changed. I guess many people still use the old name when referring to the country, but the change of the Wikipedia article was inevitable. Another issue that is pretty well clarified is the name of the people of the country, which shall stay the same: "Macedonians" as well as anything that relates to people and their culture. Only the names of the public entities and institutions of the countries will change: so it's the "North Macedonian Parliament", but the "Macedonian cuisine", the "North Macedonian President" but the "Macedonian alphabet" and so on. Even the name of the national football team should change to "North Macedonia national football team", since I expect that the football federation will change name too, but a football player can still be "Macedonian". I do expect many disputes over many articles over the next months, but I think the agreement itself provides a very good guide on how to handle them. Argean (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: Just as expected (and as I informed everyone earlier in this RfC): On 28 January 2019, the NATO's 29 permanent representatives signed the North Macedonia's NATO Accession Protocol at Brussels, and it will now be sent to the 29 capitals of the NATO member states for ratification by their national Parliaments. Once this is done in Athens, the Republic of Macedonia will inform the international community and all UN member states that the Prespa Agreement goes into full force and the country's new name will be North Macedonia. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 01:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Move to North Macedonia and let's get it over with. This agreement is a done deal now. This is the new name.--APG1984 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move. Ditto. This is actually important. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per policy. What's the rush? Paul August 19:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Per 👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 post, wait until Greek parliament ratifies the accession protocol to NATO when Prespa Agreement comes to full force. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per similar comments above. While the agreement has been ratified in both countries, is not been implemented yet by either. See also this indepth article about exactly this issue. Lordtobi () 21:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for the name change to actually take effect before making any decisions. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 22:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move. If Wikipedia cared about international law, this article would have never been about Macedonia, but FYROM. The excuse was that wiki follows what people decide to call themselves. The country is still called internationally as FYROM, but they voted and changed their constitution to North Macedonia, so what are you waiting for? Even is the whole deal goes south ... the name Macedonia will not be used again, as everyone will choose FYROM for a stable, non internal politics solution, as the UN voted 30 years ago. Wiki people, in politics, inaction is an action. Think about the action you are taking now with Wait. To satisfy every little corner, including internal constitutional courts and security council veto, it will take years to be able to say 100% that this is done. But you don't have to wait for that. You can listen to the constitution of the country or the UN. If in doubt, change the name now to Republic of Macedonia / Republic of North Macedonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.252.121 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait As has been noted by many above, the formal renaming has not yet occurred. As evidenced by letterheads on the country′s official websites: https://www.vlada.mk/ http://www.pretsedatel.mk/ Axxxion (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move per above. About time we put this one to rest. Húsönd 18:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move I think it is time to change the name now. Both countries recognise it. Also either we are Greek, Macedonian, Anti- or pro- watever, the current name, even if it was the fruit of a necessary consensus, is not good either as it is a source of contention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeryion (talkcontribs) 21:02, 2 February 2019 (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.

Name: North Macedonia == == Demonym: North Macedonian/s == == Ethnicity: Macedonians == == Language: Macedonian[edit]

I have read the discussion that you have led and I want to say some things.

1. We already all know that the new name of the country will be North Macedonia, there is no need of the word Republic before North Macedonia because there is no other use of the name North Macedonia.

2. The new demonym will be North Macedonian/s, the demonym of every country is coming from its name, so, if the name of the country is North Macedonia, the demonym will be North Macedonian/s. But to clarify that the demonym is not an ethnic, but just an political term, so there will not be ethnic North Macedonian/s, but by North Macedonian will be clarifed that that person is from the country North Macedonia or he/she is something of that country. For example, Goran Pandev is a North Macedonian professional footballer, or Zoran Zaev is a North Macedonian Primer Minister. If we wanna say that Goran Pandev is an ethnic Macedonian professional footballer, then we will write: Goran Pandev is a Macedonian professional footballer. I think these things are clear, but in any case, I wanted to make them 100% clear.

3. The ethnic group with the name Macedonians will stay the same, so, there will be no changes in the places where we talk about the ethnic group Macedonians.

4. The language with name Macedonian will stay the same, so, as for the ethnic group, there will be no changes and in the places where we talk about the language Macedonian.

Resnjari, there is no need of new article with the name North Macedonian Macedonians, we already have an article about the Macedonians. This case is the same as the case with the Bosniaks, and for the Bosniaks we have one article and that's enough, we don't have and we don't need an article with the name Bosnian Bosniaks.

Maybe we need an article with the name North Macedonians who will contain informations about all citizens of North Macedonia, the same as the articles: Bosnians, Swiss people, Belgians, Americans, Argentines etc. I want to ask you what do you think about it?

I want to ask and about the languages infobox, we need a third graph for the official regional languages, Resnjari already placed a request on the infobox talkpage, but I still don't see an answer, can anyone resolve this? Sashko1999 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts on the North Macedonian Macedonians thing was about conventions on citizenship and ethnicity being side by side. Nonetheless if MOSMAC is not updated there might be editors who will fool around and cause mischief via edit warring about what so and so bit 'really' means or implies. I do feel that MOSMAC will need to be updated with a reaffirmation of its conventions as they are with few small adjustments about North Macedonia(n) as you say in light of the Prespa agreement. @SilentResident was saying however that we treat past political and other people etc without using the North Macedonian term and it stays as it is pre 2019 with Macedonian. Admins would need to have some input on all this otherwise though its small things as everyone knows Balkan topics have the possibility to cause numerous wiki shitstorms. Just sayin'Resnjari (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Per the Prespa Agreement, the "nationality of the Second Party shall be Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". Therefore, to use your example, we'll continue to describe Goran Pandev's nationality as Macedonian (Macedonian professional footballer). --Local hero talk 17:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Local hero: - My understanding is that if it is a description of his country of origin (a footballer from North Macedonia) then he is a North Macedonian professional footballer. If it is a description of his ethnicity, then he is a Macedonian professional footballer. Only ethnic Macedonians can be described as Macedonian. If there is an Albanian in the national football team, he is always a North Macedonian professional footballer since he is not ethnically Macedonian. Sashko1999's outline looks good to me at a glance. --Michail (blah) 17:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC).
I took the wording straight from the agreement... nationality is Macedonian or citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. Agim Ibraimi will also continue to be described as a Macedonian footballer despite being of Albanian ethnicity. --Local hero talk 17:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I just read the whole agreement and yes you are right @Local hero:. Thanks for pointing it out. Much appreciated. :) Resnjari (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Local hero, do not confuse the nationality with the demonym, the nationality doesn't have to be the same as the demonym, for example, in North Korean passport writes NATIONALITY: KOREAN, but how we write here about their football players?, we write that they are North Korean, because that's the demonym for North Korea. Here is one example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ri_Myong-guk Ri Myong-guk (born 9 September 1986 in Pyongyang, North Korea) is a North Korean international footballer.

The term Macedonian will be used just if we need to say that the player is an ethnic Macedonian, we can't use this term if we want to say that the player is from the country North Macedonia, because the demonym for North Macedonia is North Macedonian/s, and not Macedonian/s. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Philly boy92, completely agree with your views because they are 100% correct. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Please reference WP:MOSBIO, we introduce nationality (or location) as context in the lead. Demonym is quite similar to nationality - for the purposes of the infobox here, we can include Macedonian and North Macedonian.
Again, per the Prespa Agreement, the people of this country are Macedonian, regardless of ethnicity. No changes will be necessary to such articles leads. Thanks. --Local hero talk 19:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
So, to summarize from the discussion thus far, we are concluding to the following terms:
  • Name: 1) Republic of North Macedonia (formal), 2) North Macedonia (common).
  • Demonym: 1) North Macedonian/s 2) Macedonian/s
  • Nationality: 1) North Macedonian/s
  • Citizenship/Nationality: 1) Macedonian/s, 2) Citizen/s of North Macedonia
  • Ethnicity: 1) Macedonian/s, 2) Albanian/s, and so on.
  • Language: 1) Macedonian, 2) Albanian, and so on.
Did I miss something? Also I am bugged how to call the country's geographical north, south, west and east: Northern North Macedonia, Southern North Macedonia? Perhaps the "Northern parts of North Macedonia" and "Southern parts of North Macedonia sound better. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 20:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Umm yes, clearly you weren't reading... nationality is explicitly "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". Where did you determine that the demonym is North Macedonian? I'd rather not get repetitive, please re-read. --Local hero talk 20:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Umm yes, clearly you weren't reading... nationality is explicitly "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". I was. And nationality isn't exactly same same as citizenship. For example: the Albanian nation spreads across 3 countries and encompass populations both of Albanian, Macedonian and Kosovar citizenship. My impression is we can't make a clear sense without clarifying where nationality/ethnicity/citizenship do differ from each other, precisely and not based on our opinions. I will need hear some opinions on this, but also I will appreciate if can we find a legal definition in the constitution. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 20:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
You need to familiarize yourself with some terms I'm afraid. In any case, this agreement explicitly tells us that Nationality = Macedonian: why does your list not reflect this? --Local hero talk 20:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, my apologies, checking again at Prespa Agreement, Page 3 of 19 where nationality and citizenship are used in the same context. Then Nationality is same as citizenship here. Updated above comment. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 21:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Local hero No need for personal attacks on users please. The agreement says that the nationality is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" (one thing, not two separate things). It does not say that the nationality is "Macedonian". Additionally 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”. Other adjectival usages, including those referring to private entities and actors, that are not related to the State and public entities, are not established by law and do not enjoy financial support from the State for activities abroad, may be in line with Article 7(3) and (4). I would argue that the demonym does relate to the state. It denotes the state that a person is from. It is not related to ethnicity or nationality. Others have demonstrated this argument clearly with the example of North Korea. --Michail (blah) 21:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I find this persuasive. But ultimately w/r/t the demonym(s), I think we should follow WP:COMMON. My expectation is "North Macedonian" will come widely into vogue, although some nationalists on either side may prefer different terms. Once we move the page, I would suggest listing both demonyms ("North Macedonian" and "Macedonian") in the infobox; in fact, there's a decent argument to just do it now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Philly boy92 At the same time, a different line of the agreement and specifically article 7, reads: 1. The Parties acknowledge that their respective understanding of the terms “Macedonia” and “Macedonian” refers to a different historical context and cultural heritage. and 3. When reference is made to the Second Party,these terms denote its territory,language, people and their attributes, with their own history, culture, and heritage, distinctly different from those referred to under Article 7(2). So if something refers to the people or the territory is still "Macedonian" but in a different context compared to Greek Macedonia. So if someone would argue that demonym is more related to the territory rather than state, then "Macedonian" would be more correct than "North Macedonian". I would insist to try to get a consensus before deciding the demonyms that should be used in wikipedia. Argean (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Argean I agree that there needs to be broad consensus, I was merely offering my own understanding of the situation. then "Macedonian" would be more correct than "North Macedonian" - no, because Upon entry into force of this Agreement, and subject to provisions under Articles 1(9) and (10), the terms “Macedonia”, “Republic of Macedonia”, “FYR of Macedonia”, “FYR Macedonia” in a translated or untranslated form, as well as the provisional name “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and the acronym “fYROM” shall cease to be used to refer to the Second Party in any official context. I think 7.1 is referring to how Macedonians refer to themselves in Macedonian, not that Macedonia can be used interchangeably to refer to North Macedonia. If we take it to mean the way you mean it, who decides on whether "Macedonian" means ethnic Macedonian or Macedonian (Greek)? After all the agreement says it's both. At any rate, I think I have made my position understood, it is my opinion that it should be done the way we treat North Korea, i.e. demonym as opposed to nationality. You also mentioned a key word, context. Macedonian gives no context. North Macedonian does. --Michail (blah) 22:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Philly boy92 Well, I never challenged if you made your point clear. I'm trying to say that there can be more than one opinions that can be well justified based on different interpretations of the text of the agreement. That doesn't mean that I'm trying to prove which one is right or wrong. So you are mentioning the line about the terms that will cease to be used officially in regards to the "Republic of Macedonia/FYROM". You can see that it doesn't explicitly mention the term "Macedonian", which on the other hand is clearly mentioned in article 7. So depending on the choice of article the conclusions that can be drawn are completely different and sometimes contradictory. For that reason I personally think that the agreement should be interpreted as a whole and not in fragments. My personal feelings on the use of the demonym "North Macedonian" are very mixed, being a Greek Macedonian myself. Especially the comparison to North/South Korea bugs me a lot, because it implies that "North Macedonians" are just a part of "Macedonians" and the other part is "South Macedonians". This could cause an awfully large amount of misunderstandings among less informed individuals that read about "North Macedonians". I honestly think that the scope of the agreement is not to change the terms that are currently being used for the people, but to change the meaning of these terms along with changing the official name of the state and its institutions. I don't feel that the use of the demonym "North Macedonians" is achieving the same goal. Regards, Argean (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry guys, just a short comment because I see that there is a lot of confusion for no reason. The Prespa agreement has nothing to do with determining the demonym for the citizens of North Macedonia. It determines the nationality/citizenship which will remain "Macedonian" as it already has been. It also doesn't touch the subject of ethnicity which is basically left to self-determination and will also remain "Macedonian", or as I prefer to call "Macedonian (etnhic)". The demonym does not always follow the name of the country or the official term used to define the nationality/citizenship and I can give a thousand examples. I believe that the demonym(s) that will be used on wikipedia articles should be decided after discussion on updating the MOSMAC and after reaching the necessary consensus. Argean (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

But it does. According to Wikipedia itself the demonym "is a word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place, which is derived from the name of that particular place". Also, the nationailty/citizenship does not remain "Macedonian", but changes to "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", an official change that will take place on ID's, and passports as well. Cutting the "/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" part is against the Article 1 of the Agreement. Demonym should change to "North Macedonian", ethnicity remains Macedonian.StevenHal (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The agreement only determines the official terms for nationality/citizenship (both being the same thing). It doesn't care about how such an unofficial and ambiguous concept like a demonym will be chosen to describe the people that come from this country. So what is a "place" after all? Is it a state? Is it a territory? Is it a geographic region? Article 7 of the agreement determines the rules that should apply on the use of the term "Macedonian" and this includes the territory for both parties. At the same time the term "North Macedonian" is not mentioned even once in the text of the agreement and I don't think that this was just an oversight. Furthermore, to give an example of how a demonym does not reflect completely the official terminology, I will use the example of another multicultural country: the official citizenship of Bosnians is Citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I don't think that we breach their constitution when we omit the "Herzegovinians" part from the demonym. And we still use "Bosnians" although it sounds very similar to Bosniaks (in some languages the two words are even exactly the same) which is clearly an ethnic designation that applies only to 50% of Bosnians. Let's wait to see what demonym will eventually predominate for people from North Macedonia and avoid trying so hard to push our own personal interpretation of the Prespa agreement. Argean (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Well since we are referring to, and this whole arguement is about the name of the citizens of the (future) Republic of North Macedonia, I believe it is pretty obvious that the "place" you ask about, is the country itself. North Macedonia. The very definition of the term makes it obvious that "North Macedonian" is the most logical way to go, as the demonym stems from the name of a place, as mentioned previously. Also, the Article 7 you mentioned, clearly describes the respective (as stated) understanding of the term "Macedonia/Macedonian" between the two countries and peoples, and does not involve third parties in any way. You also seem to contradict yourself saying demonyms are ambiguous and unofficial, yet "North Macedonian" should not be used as it is not cited in the Agreement. The example of Bosnia is vastly different from this case, more complex, and does not reflect on this issue in a similar manner (double placename instead of compound name with geographic content). I would argue that the Koreas would provide a better example in this case, both countries referring to their citizens as plain "Koreans" (officially and unofficially), but "North/South Korean" having been adopted worldwide for both official and unofficial mainstream usage. Keep in mind that even in this case, the geographic terms North and South are not official in the country titles as it is with North Macedonia. I could name other examples as well (East Timor/East Timorese etc.) but you get the point. The arguement in this case becomes even stronger taking into account the recent clarifications for nationality that do not even exist in the examples I gave. Lastly, it's pretty obvious that "North Macedonian" will, eventually, be overwhelmingly and globally used in all contexts, as it (rightfully) goes without saying to the average person, that demonyms follow state names.StevenHal (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Please, read my previous comment, because I don't like to repeat myself. First of all I don't object the use of the term "North Macedonian", but I propose a context-specific usage. Secondly the whole Prespa agreement is between 2 parties, and doesn't involve third parties in the first place. The implementation of the agreement involves third parties as outlined in the agreement itself. Article 1 clearly says that the use of the term "Macedonian" is defined within article 7 and does not limit the use of the term between the two countries and peoples, and does not involve third parties in any way. Your interpretation seems to me as POV pushing. I have objected the "North/South Korean" paradigm and explained my arguments very clearly before. The case of "North Macedonia" is obviously a very complicated one. Actually the only true comparisons that I can think of, apart from the "Bosnian/Bosniak" case that I already explained, are the Northern Cyprus/Turkish Cypriots discrepancy and the complex issue of Northern Irish identity. So obviously we need to reach a consensus before deciding the terminology, because none of us holds a crystal ball. Argean (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
My goal is neither to act like an expert, nor hold a crystal ball. I'm merely trying to interpret things as objectively and simply as I can. I do insist the demonym should derive from the state name, as defined, and as has been established, and done so for years. Not only that, it is what Wikipedia has been applying for all countries bearing directional names. East Timor's demonym is East Timorese, South Sudan's is South Sudanese, Central African Republic's is Central African, South Africa's is South African, North/South Korea's is North/South Korean, East/West German, North/South Vietnamese etc. Same goes with non-country directional names from cities to provinces (US States West Virginia, North/South Dakota/Carolina etc.) and other prefixes as well (New etc.). These demonyms are all derivatives of the states' names. You (wrongfully) take the ethnicity factor into consideration (frankly, it is a bit odd that you consider the current state, of Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonians (Greeks) coexisting with the exact same name less confusing and problem-creating. Also your suggestion of using the name according to context on each and every word it describes would be confusing and vague to say at least to anyone who hasn't actually read the Agreement) , something you shouldn't be taking into account here. That's why there are two different categories, Demonym/Ethnic Groups, clarifying everything. I can't see what would be so wrong with "Demonym: North Macedonians, Ethnic Groups: Macedonians".StevenHal (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's obvious that we have different opinions, but please try at least to read my comments carefully and avoid judging who is right or wrong, because I never tried to do the same with your comments. We both express and argument for our personal POVs, I can't see why yours is more objective than mine. I keep asking for consensus, while you keep pushing your POV using debatable arguments and contradicting yourself, especially when you try to compare the situation with "North/South Koreans" (well now you decided that their state names are "North" and "South" Korea, which contradicts your previous comment that the geographic terms North and South are not official in the country titles as it is with North Macedonia). You also seem to have decided that you know better how to define a demonym, so I think that we should forget all the linguistic relations among the various terms "ethnonym", "endonym", "exonym", "toponym" "topo-ethnonym" (as briefly described here) and stick to a vague definition of "demonym" that it may refer to the official state name or not, depending on what is convenient. I've described very carefully my personal view on why I believe the generalized use of the term "North Macedonians" creates more problems than it actually solves, so I'm not going to repeat myself. I have no idea what will be the consensus result of the discussion on an updated guideline, but at least I'm not trying to preoccupy what is logical and expected to happen. PS. And no it's not odd to keep the current terminology for people. I'm a Greek Macedonian and I don't object if someone wants to be called ethnic Macedonian, especially now that the agreement explicitly states that modern ethnic Macedonians have nothing to do with Greece and its' culture. Argean (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
You keep acting as if I'm personally insulting you. Are you that easily offended when having a normal argument or is this your way of winning? How can that consensus be reached, when we obviously have different opinions? You keep pushing your POV as well. That's what we have been doing for the last hours. That's what an argument is. Now you stick to the North/South Korea example, touching on unrelated details thinking it will somehow prove you right, while I have posted, and can post many more so it doesn't really do much. Point is, the demonym of a people stems from the place they are from, and is not (necessarily) based on ethnicity of the majority group. Like I said, that's what the seperate info boxes are for (demonym/ethnicity). I'm not going to argue whether demonyms are vague, but it's something that exists and we have to live with. I'm not using demonyms to my convenience, I'm simply using them as examples of why the demonym for "North Macedonia" should follow the steps of other directional names. The demonym "North Macedonian" while also following the demonyms of similar compound names as mentioned, is also a way of differentiating between the citizens of North Macedonia (including minorities, especially Albanians whose language is now co-official, something important we haven't touched on) and the regional group of northern Greeks, putting an end to all monopolies of the terms usage. You are bothered by "North Macedonians" for demonym, as a Macedonian Greek, while the plain "Macedonians" just basically works to overshadow regional Greek and Bulgarian Macedonians (reason why the clarification was added to the nationality). I believe it is fair and serves both peoples justice. And like I told you earlier, the average person't won't have any knowledge of every detail and asterisk in the Prespa Agreement, so you can't count on that to solve any misunderstandings.StevenHal (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
You really like to argue, don't you? I never suggested that you 're insulting me, I just keep reminding you of WP:RFC, which you have never used or suggested in your posts. We both have an opinion, but there is a certain behavior that defines pushing your POV. I don't know why actually it's you that keeps repeating the "North/South" Korean paradigm, while I have explained in other posts not only why it's a bad analogy, but also why I find other examples more relevant (e.g. Northern Cyprus/Turkish Cypriots). There is no info box for "ethnicity", there is one for ethnic groups and no this is not why they are there (it's not there in every country after all, it's there ONLY in the countries that recognize more than one ethnic group). I never said that demonyms are vague, but that the concept is vague itself and I'm really trying to understand what your interpretation is and if you understand the relation of demonyms/ethnonyms/logonyms etc. Finally I don't get your point of differentiation: so for you an ethnic Macedonian of North Macedonia is what? A "North Macedonian Macedonian"? If you say he is a plain "North Macedonian" that contradicts the agreement. If you say that he is a "North Macedonian" and a "Macedonian" at the same time this is confusing and misleading (I have explained that extensively). What I say is since the name of the ethnic group AND the nationality is not changing and remains "Macedonian", let's not make things more complicated. A "Macedonian" (as used in modern context) should remain the same and the redirection to the relevant page clarifies everything (Slavic origin, etc). A Greek Macedonian stays also the same and not related to "North Macedonia" and an Macedonian Albanian will become an "Albanian of North Macedonia" and that's no different to let's say an Albanian of Montenegro who is also a Montenegrin citizen (and there is no page for Montenegrin citizens, but only for ethnic Montenegrins) Can you just at least agree that we need to have a broader discussion before starting changing demonyms in all relevant pages in a week's time, that the agreement will come into force? Argean (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Anyways, I'm afraid I have spent far too much time (Which I sadly don't have) arguing over something we are obviously never going to reach an agreement on, and have no power on either. I have my opinion, I did my research, and I drew my conclusions, and you drew your own. I could argue with you, but it would just be perpetual and repetitive, and most importantly eventually lead nowhere. This is a compromise to end a pointless discussion for the sake of both of us, and not a withdraw, I will continue supporting what I havd stated. I trust that the people who will edit the page once the new name becomes official will do a good job solving any issues and misunderstandings such as this. Have a good day.StevenHal (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed we could argue indefinitely, but this is not what the talk pages are for. I think that we both made our points clear long ago on a topic that obviously needs broad consensus before any changes eventually apply. My apologies if you are a newcomer to wikipedia, but if you really want to contribute, please allow yourself some time to read briefly the guidelines. Regards. Argean (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly you deleted a sentence from your own comment: According to Wikipedia "Demonyms do not always clearly distinguish place of origin or ethnicity from place of residence or citizenship, and many demonyms overlap with the ethnonym for the ethnically dominant group of a region.". I'm reposting it for the sake of objectivity that you like to plead for. Argean (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Congrats. I cited the Wikipedia definition earlier, basically promoting it to you, didn't I? Glad you read it, I urge you to reread the first sentence as well, it would end our argument in an instant. And please keep the discussion on a single thread. No point in arguing in multiple.StevenHal (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you but I know Greek so I know the etymology of the terms and I don't need to read the wikipedia definitions. I haven't argued with you in any other thread but this one. Except if you are using more than one accounts here, so please stop opening new sections about the same issue just to repeat the same things over and over, because I will also keep answering. Argean (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Classic "Name does not equal Demonym": Netherlands / Dutch. --Taivo (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I've read the entire discussion, and I might say that the demonym should remain 'Macedonian'. While I recognize that there is indeed a degree of difference between nationality and demonym, the Prespa Agreement explicitly states that the nationality remains 'Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia' and goes to great length to avoid the term 'North Macedonian'. This is not a mere technicality: the government of the Republic of Macedonia used it as a key point in the name-change referendum to calm fears over 'losing identity'. I doubt that other cases (North Korea / South Korea, South Sudan / Sudan) are good reference points here. Furthermore there's definitely no evidence of 'North Macedonian' becoming a widespread demonym over the commonly used 'Macedonian'.--FlavrSavr (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The demonym related to the country will be North Macedonian though. As in, the North Macedonian Government; not the Macedonian Government. --Michail (blah) 21:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
That has not been the case so far. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The BBC, for example has been careful enough not to use it.[15]. I'm confident that even if 'North Macedonian' becomes more common, a lot of, if not the majority of the media will refer to it as 'Macedonian'. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This is about as much a crystal ball as telling you the next solar eclipse is on the 2nd of July. The agreement explicitly states that Macedonia cannot be used by North Macedonia as a name to refer to itself, so even if the demonym when referring to the people might be Macedonian (as the agreement confirms), the demonym when referring to the country will be North Macedonian. It's right there in article 1. --Michail (blah) 21:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, demonym, from that beautiful Greek word δῆμος meaning dêmos, "people, tribe" and όνομα, ónoma, "name" specifically "identifies residents or natives of a particular place" - namely the people, so I doubt there's such a thing as a "demonym when referring to the country". Demonym refers to the people, by definition. The Agreement, never, I repeat, never uses 'North Macedonian'. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Demos can also mean country, so demonym can indeed refer to the country as opposed to the people. The demonym for South Korea is South Korean, but there isn't a South Korean ethnicity; it refers to the state not the people. I would also remind you that the agreement specifies nationality as Macedonian, and since when do we use nationality for the demonym? Is Charles Michel the Walloon Prime Minister or the Belgian one? --Michail (blah) 22:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This discussion can become endless, that's why I keep insisting that we should reach a WP:CONSENSUS on updating WP:MOSMAC. Personally, I agree in specific parts with both of you (I've explained my opinion many times, so it's pointless to repeat it again). Listing or not the term "North Macedonians" in the infobox, next to the demonyms, is one thing (personally I disagree). After all the definition of demonym is so vague, that we shouldn't be debating on it anyway. The important matter is that it's becoming obvious that there is going to be an endless edit warring on which pages should be renamed and which not after the agreement comes into force, and that's the issue that needs to be resolved. --Argean (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Argean. As I'm fairly new in this discussion, I'd just like to clarify my opinion once again. The Macedonia naming dispute and its resolve is a sui generis case and other situations (North Korea / South Korea, South Sudan / Sudan) might be helpful, but not conclusive. For example, the demonym for South Korea is both 'South Korean' and 'Korean' (as it is indicated in the article itself), however, there is another country bearing the name Korea. At some point, I believe it become common in the English language to use the demonyms 'South' and 'North' Koreans to distinguish two different nationalities (RK and DRPK) of the same ethnicity. There is no indication so far that media will totally abandon the usage of 'Macedonian' and start using exclusively 'North Macedonian' en masse when referring to either the people or the government of the future North Macedonia. The ethnicity and the language, of course, remain 'Macedonian'. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi FlavrSavr. I just want to make a small clarification regarding my opinion on the naming conventions. I distinguish the demonym from the adjectival terms that should be used as titles in specific pages. As I've said before the demonym is not defined by the agreement, so let's wait and see which demonym will be eventually used more commonly. I personally agree that the demonym should reflect the nationality (in this case Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia) and there is no need for adding the "North", because not only it doesn't need disambiguation (like the Koreans, the Sudanese people, etc), but rather causes confusion, as I've explained before. On the other hand, we should all acknowledge that the agreement explicitly 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". Keeping in line with that should be sensible, no matter what terms are used by the media. That includes e.g. renaming the page of Prime Minister of Macedonia to "Prime Minister of North Macedonia", and stop using the adjectival term "Macedonian", since the Prime Minister is an official organ and not just a person. Anyway, this is a discussion that in my humble opinion should be taking place at WP:MOSMAC and not here, because the "demonym" is just the tip of the iceberg. --Argean (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, you are right, this discussion should be taking place at WP:MOSMAC, before this article becomes a hotbed for nationalists from both sides. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

First demonym: North Macedonian/s, second demonym: Macedonian/s[edit]

The thing with the demonym should be resolved on the way how is resolved the demonym about North Korea, there are two demonyms there, the first demonym is North Korean/s, and the second Korean/s, the first is used where we talk about someone who is connected with North Korea, regardless of his/her ethnicity, and the second where we talk about the ethnic Korean/s from North Korea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

In the passport of the North Koreans in the graph for nationality writes: KOREAN, so, just Korean, not North Korean, but the first demonym is not Korean/s, but North Korean/s. And in the passport of the North Macedonians will write just MACEDONIAN (with the add of citizen of Republic of North Macedonia), but that doesn't mean that the first demonym will be Macedonian/s, the first demonym will be North Macedonian/s, just like the first demonym for North Korea is North Korean/s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_passport Sashko1999 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

We simply don’t know (yet.) The definition of demonym is fuzzy to begin with. Does it describe residency? Nationality? Citizenship? Tribal affiliation (as the Greek origin suggests), i.e., ethnicity? Many languages don’t even have an equivalent for the English concept (vague as it is.) So what the people of North Macedonia will do has little bearing on how English speakers will describe people from North Macedonia. My guess is that most English speakers will eventually call them North Macedonians, but time will tell. I would argue that we probably shouldn’t have an entry for demonym in the first place; it seems overly prescriptive and therefore against general WP principles. —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I oppose the generalized use of the demonym "North Macedonian" as the first choice in the English language and I will try to explain this as clearly as possible. Naming people is very different from naming countries or regions. The common practice is to use a geographic attribute before the name of an ethnic group, to define a person that belongs to a greater divided nation or group. Examples include "North" and "South" Koreans, "North" and "South" Vietnamese, "West" and "East" Germans, "North" and "South" Ossetians, "West" and "East" Bengalis and so on. On the other hand if the demonym doesn't contain the name of an ethnic group, e.g. South Sudanese, South Africans, East Timorese, doesn't imply that these people represent a part of a divided nation. The problem with "North Macedonians" used indiscreetly to describe the people from "North Macedonia" is the co-existence of the term "Macedonians" as a designation of a specific ethnic group. It's very hard to use both "Macedonians" (as an ethnic affiliation) and "North Macedonians" (as a national demonym), without implying that there are also "South Macedonians", which is absolutely misleading. That's why I believe that the use of the term "North Macedonian" has been completely avoided in the Prespa agreement. My proposal is that the use the two terms ("Macedonians" and "North Macedonians") should be based depending on context. So anything that refers to the state, its institutions or the international representation of the country should be described as "North Macedonian", but anything that refers to an individual just as "Macedonian". That means that it's the "Macedonian citizen", but the "North Macedonian Prime Minister" (a Prime Minister is not just a person, is an official organ of the state), the "Macedonian football player", but the "North Macedonia(n) National football team", the "Macedonian singer", but the "North Macedonia(n) entry in the Eurovision Song Contest", etc. I hope that I made my point clear. Argean (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
My opinion is that that's unnecessarily confusing and kind of a convoluted way to approach this. But that's just my opinion, and we'll have to see what the common usage ends up being. For now, I think we list both demonyms in the infobox and I don't particularly care which order they go in. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly how I see it. --Local hero talk 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the Prespa Agreement, as well as the Republic's new constitutional ammends, the nationality (in terms of citizenship and not ethnicity as strictly stated), changes to "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". Therefore, keeping the (multicultural) country's demonym (which is derived from the country's name, and is based on nationality and not the ethnicity of the majority group) as simply "Macedonian" is now innacurate and in violation of the Agreement (which also calls for one name for all purposes) and the country's constitution. That being said, to avoid the (necessary but impractical) usage of the term mentioned, as a whole, it's fair to say that the best and most accurate option as far as the demonym is concerned would be "North Macedonian" (keeping in mind that according to the Agreement, all subjects related to the state adopt the new name as well). As far as ethnicity is concerned, it should stay the same (Macedonian, Albanian, etc.) as the Agreement and Constitutional changes don't touch on that particular subject. In conclusion, the nationality and demonym "North Macedonian" is accurate, whilst "Macedonian" is not anymore, and Macedonian (ethnic group) should remain as it is.StevenHal (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Well said above. North Macedonian makes sense. In south sudan we use "south sudanese"--APG1984 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
In the case of South Sudan we use "South Sudanese" in contrast to "Sudanese" that refers to the Republic of Sudan - so basically to different people. And "Sudanese people" are not even a single ethnic group, they are the inhabitants of a geographic region and a former state that has been divided. You cannot use the terms "Macedonians" (as an ethnic designation) and "North Macedonians" (as a reference to the state where they live in) to describe the same people, because if you do the next question could easily be if these "Macedonians" are the "North" ones, then who are the "South Macedonians" and who divided them? Or do we have to explain every time that a person is ethnically "Macedonian" but otherwise is a "North Macedonian" and no thing such as "South Macedonian" exists? Or maybe will the Greek Macedonians eventually become the South Macedonians? Argean (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree the demonym should be North Macedonian. None is going to wonder who are the "South Macedonians", as the term Macedonia is geographical (like South Africa). Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that demonym should be North Macedonian. Demonym is not the same as nationality (which should be Macedonian). It may refer to products, group etc. If the adjective relates to the country of North Macedonia, demonym should be North Macedonian. If it relates to the georgraphical region it should be Macedonian. Eg North Macedonian Basketball player as opposed to Macedonian Basketball Player that can be anything from a player of the North Macedonia national team to Bulgarian/Greek/Macedonian originating from the Macedonian region. Demonym in the Macedonia region page should be (if any) Macedonian, in this North Macedonia article it should be North Macedonian. This is in accordnance to the Prespes agreement to which any diviation would lead to extensive unnecessary edit wars --Stevepeterson (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Republic of North Macedonia Vs North Macedonia[edit]

I believe that the same logic which pushed us to accept "Republic of Macedonia" instead of Macedonia (to avoid confusion) should push us to put "republic of North Macedonian to avoid confusion with the north of the Greek Region. --193.239.221.248 (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no region in Greece called North Macedonia officially. We have Central, Eastern and Western Macedonia Regions as per administrative laws but no area is called North Macedonia officially Weatherextremes (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

No, "North Macedonia" provides context in itself and differentiates it from Macedonia (Greece). Republic of Macedonia was chosen because "Republic of" is the context, and Macedonia (country) could be confusing to people looking for Macedonia (ancient kingdom). North Macedonia is unambiguous enough to become the article title, no need for "Republic of". The general consensus above seems to be for a move to North Macedonia. --Michail (blah) 11:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The Prespa agreement ([16] p.3) outlines that the official name is Republic of North Macedonia while North Macedonia is the short form.Resnjari (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe article title should be decided based on Common Name though, not necessarily the official name. For instance, the official name of my home country is Kingdom of Norway, but common name and Wikipedia name is the short form Norway. Iselilja (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. However, Norway's common name is distinct on its own. Macedonia's common name isn't. There are three Macedonias. This is where the whole problem started and resulted in Wikipedia using the country's official name over the common one for its article. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
There are also two Luxembourgs (Luxembourg (Belgium), two Sudans (South Sudan), two Azerbaijans (Azerbaijan (Iran), and so on. It's not just about being distinctive as a name, it's the historical and political connotations that can make things obscure and that was the case with "Republic of Macedonia" (modern) and "Macedonia" (ancient). "North Macedonia" is unique, not only as a name, but also in its general context. Let's not make things more complicated than they already are. Argean (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Should be Republic of North Macedonia. Same logic was followed in the past when we called it Republic of Macedonia Vs Macedonia--APG1984 (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Except that this wasn't the logic that was followed then. You can see what the actual logic behind that decision was if you just read the discussions back then. The actual logic was that the title would clearly have been "Macedonia", if it hadn't been for the fact that that was deemed too ambiguous, so the next more specific candidate was chosen instead. Since "North Macedonia" isn't ambiguous in any comparable way, no such logic applies here. Fut.Perf. 12:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Plus the Prespa agreement stipulates on p.3 that North Macedonia is the shorthand form for the official name. A comment on my part to other editors, most wiki articles on country names have the shorthand forms as opposed to the official forms of Republic of... so and so place. Macedonia was in the past a complicated case, hence all this wrangling.Resnjari (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but having to use this overly lengthy name: "Republic of North Macedonia" every time here in Wikipedia, is so tedious and unnecessary inconvenience, (that's 4 whole words - as if it wasnt the 3-word "Republic of Macedonia" name already inconvenient enough). Just "North Macedonia" is more than enough for anything, both for article name and for all other purposes where countries use their short names instead of official ones.--✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Prespa Agreement under the UN defines that the terns, "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia", "FYROM", "FYR of Macedonia", "FYR Macedonia" will no longer be allowed as names to describe the country. Also, even though the common name was Macedonia, the article was Republic of Macedonia, so I don't understand how we're gonna change it to simply "Macedonia" now which didn't follow the common name rule in the past, nor now follows the official name which is North Macedonia. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

We SHOULD have moved it to simply Macedonia long, long, LONG ago. The world needs to tell Greece to grow up and shut up. --Khajidha (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Given the political situation in the area, the use of the full name was the best option. That doesn't necessarily mean the new page name will or won't include "Republic of". ONR (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Normally of course we would per policy use the common name, which we might predict will become "North Macedonia", but I would assume that the common name will be for a short time at least the same as the official name. Paul August 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
"North Macedonia" is the official short term of "Republic of North Macedonia". We can use "Northern Macedonia" to include neighboring region such as Serbian or Kosovan area of Macedonia. Wikidata has an item for this meaning. d:Q12910266. --Sharouser (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, We should move this article to North Macedonia. Northern Macedonia can be a seperate article. I opened a RfD in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 3#Northern Macedonia. --Sharouser (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Just as an aside, re d:Q12910266, that doesn't fit the meaning you have in mind. That Wikidata entry was based on mk and bg Wikipedia articles that describe "northern Macedonia" as a *sub*region of the Republic of Macedonia, i.e. the northern part just of the republic, not the northern part of the whole Macedonia (region). But neither the one nor the other is a salient separate unit, either geographically or politically, so there really is no reason to have articles for either of them. What would they contain, beyond the tautological dictionary definition that "northern Macedonia is the northern part of Macedonia"? Fut.Perf. 07:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistake. --Sharouser (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it causes confusion. The Prespa agreement already outlines what the common name should be, which is North Macedonia. Like it was already stated, there are plenty of countries that share the name with a region and it was never necessary to use the full formal name. There is no other region called North Macedonia, in fact, we don't use either Republic of South Africa for South Africa, despite it could lead to the same geographical confusion you erase. We shouldn't forget that an important reason to use Republic of Macedonia instead of just Macedonia or the full name (Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia) was that it was a contentious name and it was a compromise for Wikipedia to remain neutral as well as diminish edit wars. The agreement, in principal, should remove the political motivation and, so there's not much point in keeping the (new) full name there. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

We SHOULD have moved it to simply Macedonia long, long, LONG ago. The world needs to tell Greece to grow up and shut up. --Khajidha (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

REALLY? READ SOME HISTORY. YOU'RE SLAVS! Narethium (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Tell Greece to shut up? Really? Narethium (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
A) I'm not Macedonian. (Or any other Slavic nationality. Or Greek, for that matter.) B) I have read history, it isn't relevant here. C) Yes, really. All the whining makes Greece look pathetic. --Khajidha (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Khajidha your comment just above,The world needs to tell Greece to grow up and shut up, sounds a bit biased against Greece. It has elements of partiality, some lesson giving, lacks measure and most importantly has this "I speak for the world" flavor that I am allergic to. But since it gives me this allergic reaction, I have to answer refraining of course from insulting entire countries in the name of the World as you do. You see, I'm worried that your way of regarding Greece as a country that should grow up and shut up might be a cause of frustration for you on a daily basis. Indeed the amount of things referring to Greece in our everyday life are so numerous that you can't avoid them and you can't avoid seeing the Greeks bragging about them. Worse, there are so many people that would not like Greece to shut up at all; they even like Greece regardless calling it "special" and quite many as well even feel indebted to Greece for what it offered to the World! Not everybody of course, but it would be fair to say "many" (too many maybe?). An then Greeks come up having these recurring claims regarding things of the past like history and identity (like Macedonia for example) that disrupt your globalized world. Who cares about these things (you call these "whining")? But back to the point: still! Even in ruins, poor and annoying, Greece gets credit, is revered by many, doesn't get bashed to the proportion of its failures and as if these were not enough, it is even recognized by so many people as the successor of these great Ancient civilizations that are Ancient Greece and Macedonia! Annoying right? I agree, it must be terrible. Especially if you don't think they "deserve it". Unfortunately for you though, there is not much to do. I used to have a girlfriend like this. She thought the same about Armenians and Jewish people. "Why all the fuss about them? they should just shut up" Always the same though: not much to do about it. Of course there is another possibility: stop wanting Greece to shut up, but then again that is so difficult cause "comon greeks are so annoying, they use their history as an asset etc., its unfair and why isn't everyone seeing it?". ah... tough life. --APG1984 (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem with Greece claiming all the great things they have done throughout history. I have a problem with Greece claiming the right to tell another country what it can or cannot call itself. If the Macedonians had decided to call their country "Greece", then and only then would Greece have any standing to object. As it is, Greece's position comes off as whining and has caused a lack of progress in regional integration. So, yes, Greece should just sit down, shut up, and "suck it up, buttercup". --Khajidha (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Such rhetorical skill, much elloquence. If you are so invested in the right to self-determination, you might want to consider the fact that Macedonians (Greeks) outnumer ethnic Macedonians by a million, so dismissing one group’s right to self-determinate in favour of another group having the same right is a little bit intellectually insincere and shows a lack of understanding in the issue. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum. --Michail (blah) 13:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
As the Greek Macedonia is not an independent country, their self-identification is not being infringed upon (at the level of independent countries, they are "Greeks", not "Macedonians") and is irrelevant to the question. --Khajidha (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Let's please discontinue this discussion; it's not really helpful to exchange the same old talking points from ten years ago. Fut.Perf. 13:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, this conversation should end.
Quite honestly I am surprised by the attitude of Khajidha here... I can understand the ill-informed arguments from the IPs and red-tagged users in this section, who I would expect to not have as much of a grasp of the controversy. But I have had many discussions involving Khajidha. Sometimes we have agreed, sometimes we have disagreed, but there was always a level of respect shown towards the subject matter being debated. His utter dismissive attitude to the Greek claim and point of view here (using insulting language towards them, calling them "whiny" and to "suck it up, buttercup"), I find disappointing, and I would not have expected it from this user. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know you Khajidha and I can understand from the above that you might otherwise be a good editor but here the problem is that you are just off topic buddy and it's you that comes off as whining. We are moving on here bro!
Just look:
- the world need to tell greece to shut up
- If the Macedonians had decided to call their country "Greece", then and only then would Greece have any standing to object
- Greece's position comes off as whining and has caused a lack of progress in regional integration
I mean, do you see how much you lack nuance and how arrogant and unsubstantiated your words seem?
How is any of this relevant when Greece and North Macedonia just reached an agreement that is seen by all as a great progress? How is it relevant when North Macedonia signed that Ancient Macedonia has indeed a distinct culture than theirs? Doesn't this prove Greece had a point? Why do you disregard that Greece did give away the name Macedonia they had said they would never give for 27 years? Then about your insults (against Greece as a whole of course): it not your insults I dislike; they might be a sign of some immaturity or lack of self control but at least you are passionate. I don't like your lesson-giving attitude.--APG1984 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Both should be accepted. Whenever possible Noth Macedonia should be prefered. NBut when there is geographical connotation then we should prefer the "Republic of" to avoid confusion as the word North can give such geographical connotation instead of statutory. Eg when describing a town located in South Republic of North Macedonia, we shouldn't say that it is located in South North Macedonia. --Stevepeterson (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

National anthem[edit]

When Macedonia become North Macedonia, what happens to the national anthem Denes nad Makedonija/Today Over Macedonia and its lyrics? --2001:999:20:56E0:95AC:C60B:22BC:3F6B (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:crystal ball. Some user may dig out article about the national anthem, but we did not know the government will/had change the national anthem or not. Matthew hk (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The national anthlem will not be changed. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The demonym should be definitely just North Macedonian/s, why?, because they demonym describe from where is one person, and if someone is from North Macedonia, he/she is North Macedonian, regerdless of his/her ethncity. I said before that should be and second demonym just as in the case of North Korea, but I forget that to North Korea there is a second demonym because the officialy name of North Korea is not North Korea but Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so, because there is a second demonym Korean, but in the case of North Macedonia the situation is clear, the one and only and official name is North Macedonia and the demonym should be just North Macedonian/s.

Here are and sources about my claim.

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-names-of-nationalities-4088817 Contrast demonym, the natives or inhabitants of a particular place, with ethnonym, which refers to people of a particular ethnic group.

The demonyms of the countries with geographical name:

For Korea, North the demonym is North Korean

For Korea, South the demonym is South Korean

For South Africa the demonym is South African

http://wanderlustandlipstick.com/wandertips/language/demonyms-around-the-world/ A “demonym” is the name for the people from a certain place. For example, those who hail from America are Americans. A person from Bali? Balinese. When you are wondering whether to call someone who hails from Michigan a Michigander or a Michiganian, you are contemplating which demonym to use. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. North Macedonian refers to all the citizens and the demonym. Macedonian refers to the main ethnic group. I also believe that there should be a page for North Macedonians as a whole. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko1999:, @Xylo kai Gyali: this thread is about national anthem not demonym, please reply in the right thread. (may be #First demonym: North Macedonian/s, second demonym: Macedonian/s ?? ) Matthew hk (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Ancient Kingdom of Macedonia[edit]

Hey fellow users, do you think we can remove NOW all the references to ancient Macedonia and Alexander the Great? I mean according to the Prespa Agreement (Article 7) the second Party (FYROM) acknowledged the fact that the country has nothing to do with the ancient greek kingdom of Macedonia. I believe it is unnecessary to wait until the Agreement comes into effect. Naturally we must wait for the name change until the Ratification of NATO Accession Protocol comes into effect. But all the other elements of the Agreement (for example : the clarification of the historical context of the word Macedonia) can be included in the page because FYROM has already made steps towards this issue.( renaming of the International airport of Skopje and the main Highway )

Engelleip96 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Engelleip96 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

From what I see in the article, the references you talk about are in the Ancient and Roman Period history section. And are both sourced and objective.
"In 356 BC Philip II of Macedon absorbed[41] the regions of Upper Macedonia (Lynkestis and Pelagonia) and the southern part of Paeonia (Deuriopus) into the kingdom of Macedon.[42] Philip's son Alexander the Great conquered the remainder of the region, and incorporated it in his empire, reaching as far north as Scupi, but the city and the surrounding area remained part of Dardania.[43]"
Why would we remove them? The Prespa Agreement does not change the history of the region. Dante 80 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Dante 80, the Prespa Agreement might not change the history of the region but it distinguishes clearly the history of each country by acknowledging the usage of the word Macedonia. Geographically speaking you are right but when it comes to the readers who read the page , there is a connection of the history of the ancient greek Kingdom of Macedonia with the present state of FYROM. It's an issue of huge importance for both sides (especially the Greeks) and its maybe more important than the name change of FYROM. Maybe we can not delete the entire section of the Ancient and Roman period but we can include one or two sentences where there is a clarification of the then ancient Macedonia and the present state of FYROM. (Also about the discussion above about the demonym , i believe we can write one and only demonym and that is clearly written in the Agreement --- Macedonian / citizen of North Macedonia) Engelleip96 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The agreement makes a distinction, namely that Macedonia and Macedonia are not the same. Nowhere in the article does it say that they are. The article only points out that ancient Macedonia at some point expanded into the region which is now the Republic of Macedonia. Removing references that this happened is nothing short of historical revisionism. The Greekness of ancient Macedon is pretty blatantly obvious if one were to visit the relevant articles. --Michail (blah) 19:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Michail i agree with you on everything you just wrote. As you have correctly written IF ONE WERE TO VISIT THE RELEVANT ARTICLES , then the reader can understand the historical difference of Macedonia in Greece and FYROM. But we are talking about the article Republic of Macedonia! Why can't we include a sentence or two that clarify the difference? Yes the article does not imply that there is a connection between both Macedonias. But it does not confirm it either. Engelleip96 (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • i mean confirm the non connection of both Macedonias

Engelleip96 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

8 February 2019 is the day...[edit]

...at least according to U.S. government-funded VOA News, which cites the Speaker of the Hellenic Parliament as saying Greece will vote on ratification of the NATO accession protocol for (North) Macedonia this Friday: VOA News. As previously discussed, WP:RS indicate the name change will become official after that. So per the results of the above move discussion, I would suggest we keep an eye out Friday to see if secondary sources begin referring to the country as North Macedonia at that time. There may still be additional procedural hurdles to clear; that being said, once the name is officially changed, it will no longer be permissible under WP:MOSMAC to refer to the country by a proper name that is not operative. In other words: WP:CONSENSUS permitting, we should move this article to North Macedonia either upon confirmation that the name of the country is officially no longer "Republic of Macedonia" or upon determination that a proliferation of reliable secondary sources now refer to the country as North Macedonia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Friday the 8th of February is indeed the day that the Hellenic Parliament will vote on the NATO accession protocol and this is reported by all Greek media, including the Athens/Macedonia News Agency (which is the Greek public NA). I expect that soon after the ratification, the Government of the Republic of Macedonia (or both governments, I'm not sure) will issue a statement that the Prespa agreement enters officially into force changing the name of the country to the "Republic of North Macedonia" and requesting by all governments and international organizations to be recognized with the new name. This is the expected procedure as outlined in the agreement itself. I believe that we should expect this statement, either on Friday or at latest early next week (there is a typical detail that the Greek Government should officially notify the other government that it has fulfilled all the obligations that have been agreed between the two parts, but I expect this to happen rather quickly). So I think we should keep an eye at the government website for that statement and this should suffice to get the page renamed rather immediately. It is still evident though that WP:MOSMAC needs to be updated according to the provisions that have been agreed upon in the agreement and my opinion is that the discussion on the update should start as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and edit warring. --Argean (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Argean. I think we should wait at least until the day the Republic of North Macedonia informs the UN and all of its members. Actually according to the Prespa Agreement the ratification of the NATO Accession Protocol of NM constitutes the de facto implementation of the Agreement. That means all States CAN call Macedonia as North Macedonia if they want.The de jure implementation of the Agreement starts with the announcement of name change from Macedonia to the UN and all of its members.That means all States and other multinational orgs MUST call the State as North Macedonia. Engelleip96 (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Official UN names are listed hereChrzwzcz (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I confirm the above information. According to the news: [17] 8 February Greece indeed ratifies it. However, constitutional changes for the name change go into force in 15 February, and North Macedonia will open an Embassy at Athens and a Consulate in Thessaloniki, while Greece will open an Embassy at Skopje and a Consulate at Bitola (until now the two states never maintained diplomatic relations on ambassadorial level, only at liaison office level). --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Interesting. The source (which is in Greek) that you linked also claims that the spokesperson of the government of the Republic of Macedonia has stated that the name will be officially in use from February 15, and this seems to be the original source of this report. I don't know if we should wait for that date though, because I expect that both governments should acknowledge on Friday that the agreement enters into force, at least de facto. --Argean (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
All what I can do is wait and see. I will report back if this is the case :-) --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia climate map[edit]

World Köppen Classification (with authors).svg

The map of Köppen climate classification in the article is quite nonsensial - tundra climate in all the eastern macedonia etc.. Please delete it from article.Grtek (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That map is evidently taken out and enlarged from an extremely small-scale world map of climate regions, and quite seriously oversimplified as a result. I agree it doesn't really make much sense at this size. Even the shape of the country itself is hardly recognizable. Fut.Perf. 12:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The shape and image kind of looks like a hamburger gone wrong after being left out for days and becoming soggy. Is there anything in the commons to replace the map?Resnjari (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari and Grtek: Yes, I replaced it with commons:File:Koppen-Geiger Map MKD present.svg. Runner1928 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Cool, thanks :)Resnjari (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I've nominated the old image for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2019[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, per overwhelming consensus that now is the right time to move this article — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


Republic of MacedoniaNorth Macedonia – The Prespa Agreement which was signed between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece, entered into full force on 12 February 2019, after the historic approval of North Macedonia's NATO Accession by the Hellenic Parliament, which was the final step for the name change. The Prespa Agreement went into implementation this day, and the authorities of the Republic of Macedonia are updating the country's road signposts, border crossings, office names, diplomatic titles and ranks, as well as state institutions and state-funded organization names, which previously were using the term "Macedonia", to the new term "North Macedonia". The deadline for the renaming of all these signposts, state border crossings and such, is 15th February 2019. The country authorities are also informing, these days, the United Nations that the new constitutional name is Republic of North Macedonia (full) and North Macedonia (short) and all UN member states are obliged to accept it.

There was a Requested Move a few weeks ago, and the consensus was to wait until the right time has come. Now that the name change finally happened and the Prespa Agreement went into full force and cannot be reversed; "Republic of Macedonia" is no longer the country's official name, and therefore, I am requesting that the article is moved to reflect the country's new name. SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Move. There is no doubt that the new name is now official. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move per above, the new name is official. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 22:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Macedonia. This article should have been at "Macedonia" all along and should remain at that title until "North Macedonia" becomes the common name. --Local hero talk 23:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    Macedonia is a disambiguation page, as it should be. Different readers would see the primary meaning as Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Macedonia (region) or Republic of Macedonia. "North Macedonia" is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent with Wikipedia's naming of other countries. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Local hero, replacing the disambiguation page is guaranteed to cause too many problems and a huge semiological confusion among the editors and readers... As editor, you are ought to consider what is the best for the Wikipedia Project's sake. "North Macedonia", is a rare opportunity to remove a painful thorn from the Wikipedia's Balkan Topic Area. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
”Macedonia” is most often used in English to refer to this country, now and for the foreseeable future. But if is decided by consensus that we need to keep a qualifier in the title, then either Macedonia (country) or North Macedonia. --Local hero talk 07:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
"[...] until UN is officially informed" I am afraid this Move Request is not about how UN calls it. (and for the record, UN calls it Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia but this never really mattered for Wikipedia before, nor I can see how it would matter now). "UN [...] accepts the change" UN can not "accept" or "deny" international agreements between involved parties. The Prespa Agreement is quite clear in its provisions that the UN can only "welcome" it, not accept/deny it, as stated by the UN Special Envoy Matthew Nimetz himself. This was done intentionally, to eliminate the necessity of sending the Agreement to the Security Council (where the threat of a Russian veto looms). "Plus an RfC is needed to update WP:MOSMAC for technical issues relating to other aspects of the Prespa agreement and their application in wiki contexts, i.e ethnonym vs citizenship." Citizenship and Ethnonym are different cases and cannot be affected by this RfM, nor the RfM can be affected by them. In wiki context, they are a totally separate case, which I am very certain, you know already. Plus the general consensus was to wait until the name change is done, not until WP:MOSMAC is updated (which however is welcome to update nevertheless; in fact, it is in need for a update.) --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The ink is not dry on this process. Countries have to all sign the NATO accession protocol. Then there is the UN and as you pointed out issues such as Russia. International formalities regarding the name should be seen through first before the current article is proposed for a pagemove. I am not in favour of placing the Cart before the horse. Everything has its own time.Resnjari (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
You would have knew the ink is try since June 2018. It would be a "cart before the horse" case if the Move Request happened when the Prespa Agreement was ratified but not implemented (that's why the previous Move Request failed). Now, that the Agreement is both ratified and implemented, what are you waiting for? The name change is over already. And Russia can't veto it either. If we wait any longer, we may actually end up with the horse leaving the cart behind. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Nope. Others have to sign the accession protocol as well and then there is UN. Waiting is best until all international formalities are done with. Why do this quick. What's the rush.Resnjari (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Apparently you are talking about something else, because the Prespa Agreement's implementation was conditioned only on its ratification by Greece, not the other NATO Member states. What are you arguing about? Haven't you followed the developments closely? --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Potato patata. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not my thing about this silly name dispute. International formalites are still happening on this issue and until they are done we should wait.Resnjari (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It has become clear that we would never agree, no matter what. Let's leave it at that. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not the only one here who opposes hasty changes.Resnjari (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
So what do you suggest? To keep the article under a constitutional name it no longer uses? How does that satisfy WP:RS? --Michail (blah) 02:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack, "Macedonia" and not "Republic of Macedonia" is the country's WP:COMMONNAME but it is already reserved as a Disambiguation Page (here). So our only options are moving from one non-wp:commonname (Republic of Macedonia, which is no longer the country's valid name since yesterday), to another non-wp:commonname (Republic of North Macedonia/North Macedonia, which is the country's new name).
We can't do as you suggested and keep the article with a name that ain't its real name nor commonname anymore. If it helps things, there is a strong likehood that "North Macedonia" can become the future wp:commonname, besides the fact that it meets WP:RS. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
We should not be hasty. Wikipedia is not the Greek or Macedonian governments or the international political system. Any changes of the sort sought here should take other factors into consideration as well. @AjaxSmack makes fine points regarding that.Resnjari (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Is not about being "hasty" I am afraid. It is about respecting WP:RS. Wikipedia should reflect on facts and accuracy, and that's why we are here. The article's current name is not accurate nor the country's name anymore. What would you like Wikipedia to do? Call a country by a name it no longer uses? --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
If its RS then one should wait a while until enough of it accumulates before a pagemove is initiated. The process of international formalities is not over and are still taking their course.Resnjari (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia isn't dependent on international formalities. An example is Wikipedia using "Republic of Macedonia" when the UN and most of the world used "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". But whatever. The world is moving, no matter if we agree or disagree with. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
If I may join this chat, I fail to see the need to wait more. The agreement clearly came into force and so did the constitutional changes, postponing the move once again suggests some people have hard time accepting this new reality, but that's just me.Macedonicus (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Philly boy92: I am resigned that my opposition is an exercise in futility, so I'll admit that it's less than constructive. Macedonia (country) or simply Macedonia would be more in line with what WP:UCN/WP:OFFICIALNAMES calls for, but I agree that there is a very good likelihood that "North Macedonia" will soon be the best choice, so a short-term move to one of those titles is not warranted. I simply oppose a hurried move by brute force mass-voting based on predictions of the future, all of which are counter to policy. (NB User:Amakuru's comments below for further concerns.) If even a few more Google News results reflected use of the new name, I would not oppose, but it's still overwhelmingly "Macedonia" there.  AjaxSmack  16:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
How do you expect the new name to become mainstream, and widely used by the media and the public if sites like Wikipedia stick to the defunct/outdated one? Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia (and no.5 site in traffic globally) serves the purpose of informing and educating people as a reliable source. Wouldn't it be a bit of a paradox adopting the new name as a result of it being used overwhelmingly?StevenHal (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Just asking Don't we have to wait until it's official on 15 Feb like someome said above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.158.188.136 (talk) 2019-02-09T02:56:36 (UTC)
North Macedonia is already the official name for that country. 15 February is just one of several deadlines. For signposts, border crossings, diplomatic ranks, building and institution names, the deadline is 7 days from today (15 February 2019). For Passports, the deadline is 5 years from today (2024), etc. The deadlines have nothing to do with the name being official or not, is about making the Name Change financially more affordable and manageable for the state budget. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: The agreement is now in effect. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what Antondimak said. And I shall note the RfC won't be closed sooner than 7 days, which coincides with 15th February. Editors simply are asked to see if there is consensus about moving the article by then. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait a moment – when a country changes its name it informs international community about this. We should wait till Macedonian government officially inform about this name change. Till now it is only Wikipedia’s speculation (based on interpretation of documents) that Macedonia has already changed name, without official confirmation of this fact. Aotearoa (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until February 15 – Just wait until the official renaming takes place (which is less than a week from now). Vida0007 (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Needless to say, but whenever we vote for "Move" or for "Wait until deadline", technically is the same, since the RfC will be open for a bare minimum of 1 week. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
North Macedonia is the short form of the new official name, and WP:PRECISE enough to be a good choice for the article title. Keep "also known as Macedonia" in the WP:LEAD sentence until we witness the gradual change in common usage of the term, then change that wording to "previously known as ...". A good example for wording might be Republic of Ireland. Shadowmorph ^"^ 08:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Comment. A good portion of the other user comments above does not seem to take into account Wikipedia's policies but come out as just personal opinions. This is not a poll, or we could run the danger of brigading from various sources, so careful consideration and current policies should apply. I will always stand in support of the current stable situation of Macedonia being a disambigation page. Of course well justified opinions are welcome. Like, there is some merit to suggestions to use a different disambiguator like Macedonia (country) (e.g. like Georgia (country)) but I would like to refer those users to the old discussion where that option didn't gather enough support. In a nutshell the reason is that Macedonia is also a country (even though an ancient one) and semiological confusion would arise. Also North Macedonia, a title with no parenthesis is much better form and since it is now by no way less valid as a name, I suggest that.Shadowmorph ^"^ 09:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move. It is official now, I don't see a reason for delay. Dante 80 (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until the dust settles down and becames clear which term is mostly prefered by RS. Official name is of little relevance, secondary Reliable Sources are of much greater importance. Official name should be inserted in the first sentence of the article though.Cinadon36 (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, the current page title is not the prefered one by RS & news already and it will not even be the official (constitutional) one in a while. There were a whole lot of other vectors in the discussion for the naming of all related pages in WP:NCMAC. You can check also my comment above for more information. Also waiting too long and serving a factually incorrect title does not accomplish anything constructive.Shadowmorph ^"^ 09:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move As per WP:OFFICIALNAME. Also, North Macedonia is now soon to be member of NATO since Greece ratified the protocol and you even see news agencies starting referring to them as such. There is no reason to not wait or procrastinate. Othon I (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Othon I North Macedonia is not a member of NATO – the Greek government ratified the protocol to start negotiations to become a member, something that could take up until 2030 to be completed (according to Tsipras). --Michail (blah) 11:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, should have written soon to be member of NATO. Thanks for pointing out. Othon I (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move provided that WP:MOSMAC is updated, because what's the rush? Typically is not official yet and official sources prefer to use the term future Republic of North Macedonia, while the name change is slowly catching on with the media. It's obvious though that everything is moving in full speed for the implementation of the agreement [18], [19], so eventually we have to implement the changes in wikipedia too --Argean (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
PS. And we should not forget that WP:MOSMAC still applies and some of the naming conventions need to be reviewed and updated. --Argean (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment to administrators: This is another thing too as @Argean notes. If this article gets changed, then what are the ramifications for other articles that have the words "Republic of Macedonia" in their title? Will editors go and unilaterally change those articles too as they may cite this article getting changed as a precedent. Or will other editors who contest those changes cite that WP:MOSMAC is in force and still applies everywhere else. The potential for it becoming a mess and edit wars flaring up are wide ranging. Do administrators really want to police silly disputes via WP:ARBCOM when MOSMAC has not been updated ? This pagemove is too soon when instead it should be put off a while and an Arbcom-endorsed process be convened. There, editors and administrators can discuss how MOSMAC is to be updated, how and what editing conventions will apply (or can they be applied to Wikipedia as this is an encyclopedia not international relations of governments) to articles in relation to things outlined in the Prespa agreement and so on.Resnjari (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Relax for some days and evaluate the situation closer to 15 Feb, when the official name change will take place and this RM is getting closer to closing. Wikipedia is not a news agency. --T*U (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move I think after Greece's ratification of the NATO protocol the Prespa Agreement is in full force so no need to wait further. Weatherextremes (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move The time has come Jurryaany (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move when the time has come. The renaming will have become effective by the time this RM reaches its time to close, so just please keep it open until then. The last political steps have been taken; the rest is really just paperwork at this time. And I'm repeating what I said in the last RM: the argument that we should wait further to see whether the name actually catches on in reliable sources would be a good one if this page was now at plain "Macedonia". There is a realistic chance that plain "Macedonia" might continue to be used informally by a majority of international sources. But full "Republic of Macedonia" will most certainly vanish, once it's no longer official, so leaving the article at this title is really not an option. Fut.Perf. 11:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move As pointed out many times above, “Republic of Macedonia” is no longer relevant, at least not in English. And here’s another RS for y’all: [20]ThorstenNY (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move Per Constitutional amendement, as of yesterday official name is Republic of North Macedonia. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now per WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. I'm not sure where all these comments saying "Move" have come from, but they seem to be based on an incorrect understanding of our naming policies. If WP:Reliable sources start using the name routinely then we should follow suit, but legal and diplomatic decisions have little bearing on the matter. There is no hurry on this,let us wait and see how it pans out. Also this is WP :NOTAVOTE so piling on with move comments doesn't change the outcome.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Various reliable sources have already published articles using the new name (Euronews, RadioFreeEurope, CNN, BBC, The Economist, Der Spiegel), and, as Fut.Perf. pointed out, the current title of "Republic of Macedonia" is essentially obsolete. Antondimak (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose. Instead of moving through RM, we should start the Arbcom-endorsed process to change WP:MOSMAC without prejudging the outcome of that process.
The issues I raised in the previous RM have not changed.
WP:MOSMAC currently represents the Arbcom-endorsed binding consensus on this point, and it says this article should be at Republic of Macedonia. There is a mechanism for changing WP:MOSMAC - a 30-day RFC closed by three admins - and whatever its outcome this WP:RM will not meet the standard of consensus required.
If this discussion closes with a move to another name, the closer needs to be very clear on the scope of the decision. For example, are editors allowed to replace existing references to the Republic of Macedonia with North Macedonia on other articles - given that this would clearly break the current (and explicitly binding) text of WP:MOSMAC? And what about the thornier issues? Are the people living in North Macedonia to be called Macedonians or North Macedonians? What about the Macedonian ethnic group - is it now the North Macedonian ethnic group? What about historical references to the Republic of Macedonia in the period 1991-2019?
Given the history of this dispute, I do not see that it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia to deliberately break WP:MOSMAC in some areas and then expect it to be upheld rigidly in others, or to assume that all editors will agree on what exactly amounts to WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:IAR variation from the rule. Far better to change it through the formal process that we've been told to use, a process that will result in a new WP:MOSMAC that we can then follow consistently. Kahastok talk 12:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment Agree 100% with Kahastok. As I said before there is no rush for making such changes, before we establish that there is the necessary WP:CONSENSUS. If there are any procedural doubts that the results of this WP:RM might be not enough to become binding (and based on the history of the dispute this is highly possible), I suggest that the process should be frozen until we initiate the reviewing mechanism on WP:MOSMAC. --Argean (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think there is any reason, or anyone proposing, to change how we call the langauge or the ethnic group, and if there is it is a completely different topic. I agree that mentions to the country during the 1991-2019 period are a problem. Antondimak (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Yet, there is an obvious disagreement on renaming various related pages, where the adjectival prefix "North" should or should not be used, according to the provisions of the agreement. I believe that we should review the whole naming issue en bloc to avoid unnecessary inconsistencies and misunderstandings that can lead to an endless new chain of edit warring. --Argean (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes indeed, i hope administrators take this into account before going through with any changes.Resnjari (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a note at the top of WP:MOSMAC explicitly permitting the move of Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia. I understand your concern about a slippery slope here, but if we're following MOSMAC, we're following MOSMAC, and MOSMAC says it's kosher to move this page and sort out the rest later. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
If this RM closes with a move, it means that we are setting aside the first and most important decision made by WP:MOSMAC.
If we ignore our supposedly "binding and enforceable" guideline in this of all issues, we effectively overturn that guideline. The consensus to follow WP:MOSMAC becomes obsolete. And that does open all these other questions, whether we want it to or not.
It's clear from the discussion below that the answers to these issues is not clear-cut, and given history they are a likely cause of major disruption across hundreds of articles that currently refer to Macedonians and to the Republic of Macedonia. We can almost entirely avoid that disruption by following our own procedures to change WP:MOSMAC. Kahastok talk 14:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Kahastok, the people living in North Macedonia will be called North Macedonians, Macedonians will be called just the ethnic Macedonians, so, the Macedonian ethnic group is not now North Macedonian ethnic group, there is no North Macedonian ethnic group, the term North Macedonian/s will be just a demonym who will cover all the people who live in North Macedonia, and those people are Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Romani, Serbs, Bosniaks, Aromanians, Bulgarians etc. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment:Not so fast. WP:MOSMAC has not been updated and the Prespa agreement outlines that the word Macedonian applies not only to ethnicity but citizenship as well. It needs to be discussed as to where and what circumstances terms like "North Macedonian" apply. I would to also note that when Albanian parties in Macedonia supported this name change deal (it was their votes that got it through), Zaev promised that the term Macedonian would also apply to citizenship. There was nothing about "North Macedonian" being the formula. So having ethnic communities in Macedonia as "North Macedonian Albanians" or "North Macedonian Turks" was not part of the deal and problematic for its application here in Wikipedia. This needs to be discussed via an Arbcom process to update MOSMAC before anything big is done.Resnjari (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The agreement specifically says that the adjectival form of the name is 'of North Macedonia', i.e. North Macedonian. Euronews for example uses this when it says the North Macedonian constitution. The US Senate also used the term (North Macedonian Prime Minister Zoran Zaev. Also, like Sashko1999 pointed out, the nationality specified it not "Macedonian". It is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". --Michail (blah) 14:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The adjectival form "of North Macedonia", potentially used interchangeably with "North Macedonian", refers only to the the State, its official organs, and other public entities, so let's try to avoid making any further assumptions where it should apply, apart from the explicitly stated uses. And a warm request to all the editors. Could we please all stay on the subject, which here is the specific WP:RM? I guess that there will be a lot of time to discuss on all the name issues, provided that the discussion on reviewing WP:MOSMAC is eventually initiated. --Argean (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
In relation to this issue, if the article name changes here, then by default would that meant all article that have the Republic of Macedonia in their title gets changed, or do separate RfC apply in those contexts ? Any change here will have consequences for other Macedonia articles. Any changes should be delayed until MOSMAC is updated and then everyone will know how to apply the guidelines on pages.Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Apart from the very reasonable suggestions to update WP:MOSMAC first, I'd also like to stress that the name change isn't official until it enters the Government gazette. That's about to happen these days. I don't see why the rush. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Because we need to have resolved this before then. Antondimak (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari, the citizenship of North Macedonia isn't Macedonian, it's Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, but did for example we should call the Primer Minister of North Macedonia Zoran Zaev a Macedonian/citizen of Republic of North Macedonia Primer Minister or North Macedonian Primer Minister? We have a similar situation with North Korea, there the citizenship of the country is just Korean, but how we call the citizens of North Korea?, we call them North Koreans and that term refers to all people who live in North Korea, and those people are Koreans, Han Chinese, Japanese etc. Also, we call the President of North Korea a North Korean politician, not Korean, we call the footballers from North Korea a North Korean footballers, not Korean etc. etc. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

With North Korea, there is a South Korea, hence the need to distinguish. In the world there is only one Republic of Macedonia and its the only country that has Macedonia within its name, even with the name change. So in relation to citizenship I fail to see why it should change for Wikipedia the way its been for more then a decade now with just having it Macedonian. Like i said the term Macedonian applies to citizen (as stipulated in the Prespa agreement) and it needs to be discussed vis a vis on if and how North Macedonian would be used as well (in what contexts if or would it be appropriate -and that's if the community gets consensus on having such a term exist via an Arbcom process).Resnjari (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
FYI, just in case someone here isn't aware: per Prespa Agreement, there are 2 demonyms: one for state and diplomatic-related purposes, and one for citizen-related purposes. The demonym for diplomats, officials, institutions and governmental bodies in the country is "North Macedonian" (i.e. North Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, North Macedonian Prime Minister, North Macedonian Passports, etc) while for citizens is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia". -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
There is South Africa and there is not North Africa and the demonym for South Africa is South African/s, not African/s.
There is South Sudan and there is not North Sudan and the demonym for South Sudan is South Sudanese/s, not Sudanese/s.
There is South Ossetia and there is no North Ossetia and the demonym for South Ossetia is South Ossetian/s, not Ossetian/s.
In the future the term Macedonian/s refers just as an ethnonym for the ethnic Macedonians and as an geographical term for the all citizens of the geographical region of Macedonia, it can't refers to the all citizens of the country North Macedonia, because in this country don't live just ethnic Macedonians.
Here is a source that the adjective for North Macedonia is North Macedonian, not Macedonian.
https://www.neweurope.eu/article/welcome-north-macedonia/ New Europe will now refer to North Macedonia, the country’s newly-approved constitutional name. We have been careful to refer to the country as Macedonia/FYROM up to this point and will use that term only in a historical context or if the discussion requires this for clarity. We will use the adjective “North Macedonian” as needed, slightly shorter than the term “of North Macedonia” which the Prespes deal spells out. Sashko1999 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Until MOSMAC gets updated no changes should occur.Resnjari (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm really tempted to challenge the WP:NEUTRALITY of the very few sources that are using the term, but a quick google search can give a clue to everyone (I don't know if the fact that New Europe has a Greek editor is accidental). For now I think that the lack of WP:VERIFIABILITY and lack of WP:CONSENSUS are good enough reasons to withhold such proposals. --Argean (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sashko1999: Actually, North Ossetia does exist, but not as an independent state. It's people are known as North Ossetians so your point is still valid. Similarly North Africa is a region (bigger than a single state) and the people that inhabit it are often known as North Africans, again concurring with your point. However, North Sudan is what some argue that Sudan should now actually be called, after the succession of the south, but the sudanese themselves consider this somewhat insulting. This doesn't stop the media often times calling them North Sudanese or the state North Sudan. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Wiz9999:, we are talking here about the independent states, not about the regions, federal subjects, provinces and similar. If we talk and about the regions/federal subjects/provinces, than yes, North Ossetia exist as a region and also as a federal subject who is part of the independent state Russia. It's people there, as you said, are known as North Ossetians, but that's just a regional demonym, not and a state. North Africa is a also a region, similar to Northern Europe in Europe for example, and the demonym North Africans is also just a regional demonym who refers to the residents from this region. North Macedonia is a also region, but in the same time is and independent state, the other two parts of the region of Macedonia are just regions, not and independent states, those regions are South Macedonia, who is part of the independent state Greece, and East Macedonia who is part of the independent state Bulgaria. As and the prevous ones, amd this case, the demonyms South Macedonians and East Macedonians are just a regional demonyms, and the demonym North Macedonians beside regional, it's and state demonym. To say and the people who live in the regions of South and East Macedonia (mostly ethnic Greeks and Bulgarians) call themselves just Macedonians in a regional sense, not South and East Macedonians. As regards to the Sudan, I don't know how it should be called, but I know that it's offical name is Republic of the Sudan, not Republic of the North Sudan, so, we have Sudan and South Sudan and Sudanese and South Sudanese, we don't have North Sudan and North Sudanese. Sashko1999 (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Your insinuation here that only demonyms from 'independent states' matter is quite incorrect. It is perfectly fine and acceptable to call people from Scotland "Scottish" even though they are also "British" both labels are correct. By the way, Greeks would find the terms "South Macedonians" and "South Macedonia" insulting, because, as far as they are concerned, "Macedonia" does not extend outside of Greece. Greece has a region called "Eastern Macedonia", so they would also find "East Macedonia"/"East Macedonian" (referring to the Bulgarian territory & people) insulting. It would be incorrect to dismiss so easily regional demonyms and only consider national ones. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, if is like you are saying, then my arguments why the demonym fo North Macedonia should be North Macedonian/s are even more bigger, because the demonym Macedonian/s is a regional demonym in Greece and Bulgaria, so, I don't think that is correct this demonym to be and a demonym for a country with the name North Macedonia. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: Both nations already signed the agreement and this is the best option for us to defuse the situation and be able to edit Macedonia related articles (be it North Macedonia or Greek Macedonia) without constant complains of not being up to date or taking sides. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment to those basing their opposition on MOSMAC: WP:MOSMAC deals with the conflicts that arose from Greece’s insistence on calling the country FYROM, while the country itself called itself Republic of Macedonia. The Prespa Agreement resolved this conflict. This appears to render MOSMAC moot as far as the current, bilaterally-agreed-upon name North Macedonia is concerned. (MOSMAC might still be relevant for referring to events related to the country between 1991 and early February 2019.) —ThorstenNY (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
So far no Arbcom process has made MOSMAC redundant. Until such time its still applicable on Wikipedia.Resnjari (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
There are still editors insisting on FYROM. FTR. Kahastok talk 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
MOSMAC is about a country “whose name is politically disputed.” The text of MOSMAC itself says what its scope is. Its scope is any names that are/may be in dispute. Its scope cannot be names of or relating to the country which are not in dispute. I’m fine with waiting until we have RS photos of new border signs, until the UN and/or other governments have acknowledged “North Macedonia.” But we all know that this is happening within the next week. Are you really proposing that we wait an additional 30 days beyond that for some ARBCOM process to play out? —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, i'm insisting that we wait until its properly implemented. On MOSMAC it exists because Macedonia is a complex issue. Just because an international agreement was struck and agreed to by elites from both countries (the only elite who had the democratic mandate to vote for that name change were the Albanians of Macedonia, as ethnic Albanians overwhelmingly voted in the referendum for the change), both a majority of Macedonians and Greeks are against this agreement. If MOSMAC is not updated various prejudices or "viewpoints" may guide those editors to be disruptive and push certain views from either a nationalistic and or fringe point of view.Resnjari (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I wanted the MOSMAC RFC to start two weeks ago - and said so in the first RM. The longer we delay through processes that don't meet the standard of consensus required, the longer it will take to adopt the new name. If we think there's a serious risk of the new name not getting used then there's no reason why the change cannot be made conditional.
But unless Arbcom themselves tell us that the process is no longer required and that MOSMAC can be changed by the normal process, then yes, I think it is better to delay by a couple of weeks than to create months of problems for ourselves. Kahastok talk 17:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Well said @Kahastok and i concur with your thoughts.Resnjari (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kahastok and @Resnjari: Exactly my thoughts. I can't see why an agreement between two governments will somehow legally bind all editors to comply, without having a set of rules that clearly set the framework for all related articles. The agreement has not resolved all the sides of the long established dispute (although is in the right direction) and I can't see how it will prevent various editors to apply their own views on the "right" terminology, if we eliminate WP:MOSMAC. As Kahastok said the discussion on reviewing WP:MOSMAC should have started at least 2 weeks ago and I can't see why everybody is rushing to change the name of the article, without establishing a new comprehensive consensus for all the issues that will clearly arise as a consequence. We are really heading to a new WP:ARBMAC, aren't we? --Argean (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kahastok:, @Resnjari:, @Argean: Surely the three of you see the need for urgency regarding the discussions over WP:MOSMAC, and the emergence of a new consensus on that policy, considering the overwhelming support by editors at large to make this article move happen. Just look at what is occurring in this lengthy discussion! Now I am very well aware that the naming dispute is not over, in fact, it is far from it. I know that many in Greece will still refuse to refer to the FYROM people as "North Macedonian". Even THAT will be going to far for them. Similarly, in FYROM many will refuse to give up the claim to their state being called "Macedonia". We will need a firm WP:MOSMAC that reflects the essentially predominant term of "North Macedonia", which effectively didn't exist previously, in order to prevent future conflict. I know this process takes 30 days min. for RFC, which is why we need to expedite its initiation, since many will now be insisting on performing the name change themselves across hundreds of other articles that mention this state and its people/language regardless of what happens with this article. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@WIz9999 The process of drafting an RfC for a reviewed/updated WP:MOSMAC has already started here. We are well aware that this will take time and personally I don't think that this should stop the RM on the current article, since the support is overwhelming and the official renaming of the country will apparently happen in the next few days. I'm already afraid that we are too late though and the fact that all articles (apart from the current one?) are currently protected with WP:MOSMAC per ARBMAC2, this will unfortunately cause an awful amount of misunderstandings and edit warring. --Argean (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
That is EXACTLY what concerns me. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Wiz9999: I reposted the link for the discussion on drafting a new RFC in a new section for better clarity. At least let's try to speed up the process now, although it will take more than 30 days per ARBMAC2. --Argean (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I've been quite impatient to get the RFC process going. The earlier we sort this, the less time we're out of kilter with what people expect, the less we're going to get helpful people unwittingly sparking problems by prematurely fixing things for us.
And given some of the arguments, and the fact that the RFC process is now in train, I've been reviewing my position on this RM. But my conclusion is the same. I think it will be far easier to limit disruption if we hold this article where it is until the MOSMAC process is complete. And I see no reason to rush this through to keep this article up-to-date if every other article will be staying out of date. Kahastok talk 18:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kahastok: WP:MOSMAC itself tells us (right on top) to use common sense. It flies in the face of said common sense to insist on continuing to call the country Republic of Macedonia for an entire months or so after the authorities in Skopje have begun to replace signs using that now obsolete name. MOSMAC’s purpose was to reconcile a conflict between governments. That conflict is now resolved. —ThorstenNY (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"MOSMAC’s purpose was to reconcile a conflict between governments." It is a bold editor to think that a simple wikipedia policy could resolve anything between two governments at loggerheads with each other. WP:MOSMAC's purpose was not to "resolve" anything, it exists simply to address how WE as EN.Wikipedia editors handle what is clearly a contentious series of issues that divides opinions (and not just Greek and North Macedonia opinions). It serves to take as neutral a stance as possible on the issue, while defining specific terminology to be used to best hold this neutral position. But otherwise, yes I agree with you that common sense here dictates to not hold back this specific page's move request in light of the overwhelming need for EN.Wikipedia to reflect this historic name change. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
What did I say about common sense, @Wiz9999? ;) Of course MOSMAC’s only objective was to reconcile this conflict as far as it pertained to usage on WP. Can we not assume the most basic context? —ThorstenNY (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
But changes to other articles are still going to have to wait for WP:MOSMAC. That's the thing. Some of the changes that need to be made to WP:MOSMAC to reflect this name change are potentially controversial, and because of how disruptive this issue has been in the past these disputes need to be resolved before we can proceed with making the changes.
If it is common sense to rename this article, it is also common sense to move ahead with changes on all the articles that discuss the country in question. And if we could do that that would work - as it worked with the recent rename at Eswatini. But we can't, because WP:MOSMAC doesn't allow it. So we as editors on related articles end up in an impossible position. We are expected - nay, required, according to an Arbcom decision - to revert helpful editors propagating the change, in order to adhere to a rule that is being broken in the most prominent possible way. Kahastok talk 19:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The only reason why I say it is "common sense" to move this article early (on the 15th) is because, if we do not move forward with this at the appropriate time, we will get a tidal wave of edit requests on this page to perform the move by less experienced wikipedia editors. It honestly just makes the most sense to not resist this, due to the overwhelming consensus on this single article's naming issue. The rest of wikipedia is another matter, it would be better if our time was spent monitoring and preventing premature term changes to demonyms, adjectives, language, ethnicity (you know there will be many instances of these changes occurring in articles no matter what) than to waste our time refusing this article's name change again, and again, and again, and again for the next month. We are heading for consensus on this single page, just let it happen. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. I'm well aware of which way the discussion is going, and I'm also aware that it's unrealistic to expect it to suddenly change direction.
But I think it is useful for my concerns to be at least heard and understood, even if others weigh up the pros and cons and come to a different conclusion from me. Kahastok talk 18:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Serbian media (RTS) have already reported that the country is changing its border signs to "North Macedonia". Antondimak (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait. Many people above claim that the Prespa agreement entered into force on 8 February 2019. Do you have any reliable sources for this? According to the agreement (article 2.4) it enters into force once the ratification processes for both the Prespa agreeement and the Nato accession protocol have been completed. Can anyone confirm that the ratification instruments have been deposited? It is not enough with just the consent of the Greek parliament... --Glentamara (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

On January 26 2019 the Greek parliament ratified the agreement, after the one of North Macedonia did. On February 8 2019 it ratified the Nato accession protocol. It's essentially in force now. North Macedonia is changing its border signs. Antondimak (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
No. Formal ratification is done by the head of state or the government, not the parliament. And the process is completed once the ratification instruments are deposited with the secretary-general of the United Nations. Here is an official source confirming that the agreement is not yet in force: [21]. --Glentamara (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Glentamara: sorry, but the Prespa Agreement is already in full force since yesterday, and today the authorities of the Republic of North Macedonia already begun replacing the country's road signposts and border stations, with the Bodgorica Border Station at the Greece-Macedonia borders, chosen for symbolic reasons, to being the first of all the country's border stations that see its "Republic of Macedonia" updated into "Republic of North Macedonia": [22] -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Please provide a source confirming your claim that the Prespa agreement is in force. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Skopje it is not, see reference above. --Glentamara (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Reply is right below: [23] -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait then Move - The link supplied by Glentamara above is pretty persuasive to me. Contrary to comments above, the agreement is not in force as of 9 Feb 2019, and we will be getting an update in a matter of days once it is. (If you need further evidence, look no further than the header graphic of the very government website it is posted on). The Tom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@The TomFor your information, today the authorities in the Republic of North Macedonia already begun replacing road signposts and such, with the Bodgorica Border Station on Greece-Macedonia borders being the first one, chosen for symbolic reasons. I understand some editors may want to be cautious and wait until 15th February Deadline, but thing is, if the Prespa Agreement wasn't in force, the whole progress of renaming the country's signposts and names, shouldn't be happening at all: [24] I understand that there is some confusion, but there is no doubt that the naming change procedures have begun today, as planned. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The renaming process might have started, but that does not mean that the country has officially changed its name. It might only be practical preparations. Please provide references confirming your claims: (1) that the Prespa agreement has entered into force and (2) that there is a deadline 15 February 2019. --Glentamara (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Al Jazeera RFE/RL Associated Press all indicate this was the last step and the name of the country is now North Macedonia. It's all over but the procedural changes and fixes, which will literally take years. Are we still going to have this article parked at a name that is now an artifact of history four years from now because not every Macedonian passport will have had "North" added to it, and/or some people still insist on calling the country "Skopje" or "FYROM"? The name of the country is North Macedonia. The process of moving this article has been properly initiated; it should move forward based on Wikipedia policy and good faith. I see no reason to support keeping this page under an inoperative constitutional name past the RfC period, personally. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
No one saying to hold out that long. However Wikipedia is not a news organisation. Journalists from news organisations have to just be concerned with only their own content. Most don't have to implement updates on a complex interconnected system of webpages like Wikipedia that deal with so many aspects of Macedonia and have editors with different knowledge backgrounds, skills and perspectives. So changes to this main page will have ramifications to many others. If rushed and nothing is noted about how a change here would be handled for other articles then the chances for a large mess, of edit wars to flare up are big. As of now WP:MOSMAC is still in force. Administrators need to take into account these other aspects as well.Resnjari (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Glentamara, all these developments are occuring this week and in accordance with the plans. Here are all the remaining steps's details now that legal requirements of the the Final Agreement (aka Prespa Agreement) are fullfilled:
“After the fulfillment of all legal requirements for the entry into force of the Final Agreement and the Constitutional Amendments, the Government of the Republic of Macedonia will publish the date of entry into force of the Constitutional Amendments and the Constitutional Law in the Official Gazette,”
“After that, the Republic of North Macedonia and Greece will submit a joint letter to the UN Secretary General, informing António Guterres of the date of entry into force of the Final Agreement, thus ending the decades-long bilateral dispute between the two countries,”
After this, the Republic of Northern Macedonia will inform, in an appropriate manner, the UN Secretariat, the member states, the UN observer countries, as well as all the other international organisations of which it is a member, about the changes that have occurred.
“All this is expected to happen in the next few days”.
Source: [25]. As I have already informed you all in the previous RfC, about 2 weeks ago, and I am re-posting it here, you can see what these final steps are and when they are going to happen (the next few days - according to some Greek media, this Monday). As far as I am aware, there are no further legal procedures behind the ratification of the NATO protocol by the Greek parliament which already happened yesterday. The Prespa Agreement's legal requirements have already been fullfilled. Now it is the other side which has a deadline until 15 February 2019, for updating all of the country's the signposts, institution names, state offices and such, to the country's new name. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The Prespa treaty is obviously not yet in force (see the Macedoninan Ministry of Foreign Affairs), neither are the constitutional amendments of the Macedonian constitution. There is a common misconception among journalists that they think that a parliament ratifies treaties (we had the same misconception when, e.g., the Lisbon Treaty was ratified). Sure, a parliament may "ratify" a treaty in the sense that it approves it. Formal ratification, in the sense of international law, however, is done by a head of state (or in some case a government), most often after the parliament has given its approval. Ratification is done by signing and sealing a ratification instrument, a formal letter that confirms that a state is legally bound by a treaty. This instrument is then sent either to the other contracting party or to the depositary of the treaty. No one has so far provided a source confirming that the Prespa treaty has entered into force or that the Maceonian constitutional amendments have entered into force. On the contrary, we have several sources confirming the opposite. --Glentamara (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you are perhaps being a little bit too punctilious about this. The change will have officially happened before this request has had time to close. --Michail (blah) 21:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
For me it's perfectly fine to move ahead with the renaming of the article. But I don't like that people here claim that the Prespa treaty has entered into force nor that Macedonia would already have officially changed its name to North Macedonia without providing any sources for it, while there are several sources confirming the opposite. --Glentamara (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Glentamara:, you might want to read this. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of North Macedonia, in line with the Prespa Agreement, begun using the new name for the country, on 9 February 2019, and so, now it refers to the country as Republic of North Macedonia. You say the Prespa Agreement hasn't come into force, yet why its provision s are coming into force? I think you will need read this report as well: [26] -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The news article you are refering to is in turn refering to the statement of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs that I have already linked to above. Here it comes again: [27]. Please read it CAREFULLY and you will understand that the name change has not taken place yet, neither has the Prespa treaty entered into force. They are using "the Republic of North Macedonia" when refering to what Macedonia and Greece will do AFTER Macedonian authorities have published the constitutional amendments in the official gazette. At that time the country will have that name, but not before. --Glentamara (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Glentamara: still I wasn't convinced by the sources you provided, as the sources in the Greek language I had, claimed otherwise, that the Katrougalo's signature of the Ratification law, is what puts the Prespa Agreement in full force. Apparently that wasn't true. At last, now we can say for certain that the date the Prespa Agreement enters full force, is today, 12 February 2018 and this time I can confirm this via both Greek, Macedonian and English sources at same time. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident: Yup, now we agree. --Glentamara (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

NOT MOVE : Its true that since yesterday Macedonia has been changing its name in maps, stations etc. However these actions do not constitute the de jure implementation of the Prespa Agreement.Any country can call (if its government wants) Macedonia as North Macedonia, but this is totally a de dacto action because no country has been informed OFFICIALLY from Macedonia about the name change. When Macedonia informs the UN and its members (and other international organisations) that the country must be called North Macedonia from now on , THAT is the moment for us to change the name of the wiki page. Engelleip96 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Move' Are we discussing if Earth is flat? The agreement is done. All approval steps have been followed. If everyone in here have suddenly become so legally sensitive, then use FYROM that was always the legally International name. This sensitivity in wiki came 25 years too late. Change the name, and start arguing if the local Albanians are North Macedonians or Macedonians! Now that will be fun. But for now, the name is settled...(for now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.252.121 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Your comments are interesting. I'm curious to know IP 121.44.252.121, are you a returning editor or someone new?Resnjari (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari: no WP:PersonalAttacks please. Even IPs can participate in discussions. I recommend the admins here check the IP just in case, but Resnjari, avoid such comments in the future. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh give it a rest. No one mentioned Albanians apart from me. The IP whoever it is (a returning editor or a newbie) already went down the targeting road as per WP:NATIONALIST.Resnjari (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
For real? Then my apologies. In that case ignore my comment. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Kahastok above, that this should be speedily procedurally closed. Since the naming convention governing this is under ARBCOM sanctions, the standard RM process does not have the authority to make this change. I would suggest a filing at WP:ARCA should be the next step so that we get an opinion from ARBCOM on how to proceed.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Note: I've posted a draft with some suggestions for that RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia), but personally I'd still suggest to allow this RM to go ahead here, since by the time of its regular closure the present title "Republic of Macedonia" will simply no longer be correct and should be allowed to be updated in a timely manner, without waiting for another month of a big RfC. It would be different if the article was now at a title represnting its "common name", because that common name might well continue to remain as such in practice for at least a while, but "Republic of Macedonia" simply isn't that, and never was. Fut.Perf. 20:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
ok, but if we move this article, some kind of disclaimer should exist that other articles are off limits until MOSMAC is updated so this is contained. Otherwise there will highly likely be edit wars over page names all over the place etc. Just sayin'Resnjari (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Resnjari, I disagree with you again (unfortunately). Moving the state-related articles such as Economy of the Republic of Macedonia to Economy of the Republic of North Macedonia, shouldn't be restricted by the ongoing MOSMAC procedures, provided that they are done on the same grounds as the current Move Request. If the current article is moved successfully and without any issues, then I cant see why would it be a problem to move the other state-related articles as well. If this RM is discussed excessively and it has been concluded that there wouldn't be any unforeseen complications with MR for the other articles, then I am up for it. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry to interfere, but apart from the obvious cases of state-related articles that are usually formulated as "of the Republic of Macedonia", there is a large number of articles that is not clear if and when, if ever, should be renamed, e.g. Macedonia national football team, Macedonian Orthodox Church, Macedonian Stock Exchange, Macedonian Radio Television, etc. And I don't even want to think what will happen to articles that use "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" in historical context or to articles that contain biographies, where the use of "Macedonian" vs "North Macedonian" will be challenged by many editors. It's obvious that we need a consensus on reviewing WP:MOSMAC, and that should not necessarily prevent the current RM, provided that we get a green light from the ARBCOM that we don't breach MOSMAC with this move. --Argean (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
According to the Prespa Agreement, all public entities, as well as those related to/funded by the state, its organs, private entities funded by the state as well, or established under the state's law are subject to name change as well. I'm pretty sure the National Footbal Team, the Stock Exchange, the Orthodox Church, the Public Radio Television, etc. are, if not state owned, public, or enjoy state funding. So it's more than obvious these institutions follow the new constitutional name. You seem to try to push the new name out of use as much as possible already.StevenHal (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm well aware that all public entities are obliged to follow the new name and I expect them to do so in due time, and I suppose that is the time to rename their relevant pages. I'm reminding though why we have WP:MOSMAC and I've made suggestions on how it should be updated to match the provisions of the agreement. What we don't need is a new state of ambiguity that will allow editors to act based on their own interpretations of the agreement and circumvent the established (or hopefuly re-established) consensus. --Argean (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The renaming of relevant pages should be done in an organized fashion with a common approach, with that I agree, and according to the Agreement of course. And the Agreement is not as vague on this particular issue as you try to make it seem. It is pretty clear on who should/shouldn't adopt the new name. To repeat myself and conclude, public/national institutions, state owned institutions, state funded institutions, institutions established under the state's laws, as well as private institutions, companies, etc. which enjoy funding/promotion by the state (exported products of private companies e.g.), or were established under its laws, SHOULD follow the new name. Only independent private institutions don't have to adopt the new name if they do not wish to do so. Questioning the renaming of the country's NATIONAL football team, or PUBLIC radio television, is a bit suspicious, and hopefully doesn't serve any pruposes. I have noticed, a great deal of your comments on these discussions suggest reducing the use of the new name as much as possible, even in violation of the Agreement, and I don't understand why. I'm definitely for a non-hasty, moderate approach on this, but for issues that are truly vague, and not crystal clear.StevenHal (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, eventually I can see that we do agree. I just want to remind you that not every editor knows by heart all the articles of the agreement (not that they are supposed to) and that is the reason that we need a reviewed and updated guideline for everyone to follow. I selected a number of pages that I assume that eventually YES should be renamed (depends on their legal status), contrasting to pages that should not be renamed if we follow the agreement word by word (e.g. Macedonian cuisine, Macedonian music), but I don't think that most editors are aware of the distinction. Actually there is an ongoing discussion on updating the guideline here and you are more than welcome to take part, since it seems that you are well informed. I will pass your comments that direct to me personally and not consider them WP:NPA, based on WP:AGF for apparently being a new editor of wikipedia, but I can't ignore the fact that so far your responses are selectively addressed. --Argean (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You are right, everyone should follow an updated guideline. Also, pages like Macedonian cuisine you mentioned, where it isn't 100% clear whether should follow the new name, could be changed as "Cuisine of North Macedonia" to avoid any confusion/controversies. Finally, I apologize for any personal offenses I may have made, it was not my purpose.StevenHal (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I'm aware that my writing style is often articulated in a way that evokes responses, but please keep in line with WP:AGF when in doubt, because this is the best way to contribute constructively. --Argean (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes exactly. Well articulated @Argean. When the architects of the Prespa accord made their agreement, i doubt they took into consideration the possible issues that might arise within Wikipedia. The current RM is the way to go with everything that @Argean outlined.Resnjari (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't help but, you just reminded me the contemporary fact about Politicians and Wikipedia: the first are the ones who cause the mess, while the latter have to clean the mess and figure out things. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
According to the Prespa Accord, the institutions funded by the Government/State will have the adjective 'of North Macedonia' or 'of the Republic of North Macedonia' and private / independent institutions can proceed use the adjective 'Macedonian'. Macedonicus (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move now. This is happening (no doubt about that), and in that case, the formal moment of name change is a logic one. Waiting procedurally for the UN or ISO3166 to be informed in this case is no added value.
@L.tak: - Don't forget your signature (--~~~~) please. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move it It may of been too early the last time, it isn't too early anymore. Felicia (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of North Macedonia, in line with the Prespa Agreement, begun using the new name for the country, on 9 February 2019. Source: [28] -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait (some days) until FYROM publish in government gazette when the amendments in its constitution are being implemented. After that FYROM and Greece will send a letter to UN, to inform for the date Prespa agreement is going to be implemented. Then FYROM will inform all countries and international organizations about the change of its name. [29] Xaris333 (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move - It is official as of now even if not informed as of yet or amended. I do understand why some may want to wait so it's not a strong support for moving it but since it's eventual to happen, we may as well start now. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 00:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I can't possibly be the only person, can I, who sees the notice at the very top of this talk page reading: "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Republic of Macedonia is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBMAC). The current restrictions are: Editors may not make any modifications to the official name of this country until consensus has determined that the name has officially changed." This is a proper process to determine whether that consensus exists. Calls for a speedy procedural close ignore what has been clearly laid out on this page and others. This move request and RfC is valid, and per both this page and WP:MOSMAC, there is nothing that prevents this page from being moved except the normal RM process. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Move with a delay until 15 February at most. Nice4What (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move now and end this ridiculous thing. Btw it is funny to see those who were happy with the actual name propose to "wait for the UN to approve" while they have argued the UN name was irrelevant all this time. Anyway...--Azeryion (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait to move to "Republic of North Macedonia" until formal name change process is complete (see here [30] for source indicating that the country's government is still using "Republic of Macedonia" as its official name as of Feb. 9, and that the name change process will not be complete for "a few days"), or to move to "North Macedonia" once it can be demonstrated by reliable sources to be the WP:COMMONNAME, whichever comes first. I'm not familiar with Arbcom rules, but of course those should be respected as well.As a side note, UN notification has not been a condition for changing countries' names on Wikipedia in the past. We typically update a country's official name as soon as it is clear that the new name is considered official within the country's own law. GeoEvan (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Two points. 1) Since when do we name the article after the official designation by the UN? Since the new name has already started being used, and since we use the common name rather than the name recognised by the UN (which if we did we should have moved it to fYROM until the UN changes it in a few days), it should be changed to the name already used by governments and journalists, that being "North Macedonia". 2) When this discussion closes, all the procedural arrangements will be done and the name "North Macedonia" will be official in every legal sense. Therefore there is no point for people objecting, unless you want to keep the old name indefinitely. Antondimak (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment If anyone wonders, tomorrow Greece officially informs North Macedonia that it has fulfilled all its obligations according to the treaty, and from then on the country is obliged to use the name "North Macedonia" everywere (erga omnes). Antondimak (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Unpopular opinion The new page should be Republic of North Macedonia which redirects from Republic of Macedonia. Meanwhile Northern Macedonia should redirect to the geographical region - Macedonia (region) Wikiknol (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • "North Macedonia" will be the name if the country, and we don't need to include the whole name, like we do with ever other country. About "Northern Macedonia", maybe there should be a disambiguation page. Antondimak (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move is approved, but wait until February 15 to move to North Macedonia. However, the concerns of User:Kahastok above are valid that this is going outside the current bounds of the Arbcom-endorsed WP:MOSMAC. However, due to the historic nature of the name change, and the potential for resolution that the change ultimately represents to the Macedonian naming issue, I feel we should not stand in the way of this change. WP:MOSMAC should STILL BE IN FORCE for the rest of EN.Wikipedia, but the initiation of the updating of WP:MOSMAC should be expedited now in order to reflect the historic change that will so obviously impact it. Also, I strongly oppose any suggestion that the page be moved to "Republic of North Macedonia", as it will doubtlessly be the case that the WP:COMMONNAME for this state will end up being "North Macedonia" (in commonly spoken English), due to the common names of other states with cardinal directions similarly in their names (e.g. North Korea, South Sudan, South Africa, etc). The addressing of ambiguous redirects such as Northern Macedonia should be addressed during the updating of WP:MOSMAC - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move Official name change will happen tomorrow when the Greek government informs the Republic of North Macedonia that the Prespa Agreement is now fully ratified, and the NATO accession protocol for the country has been approved by the Greek parliament. Once this step is taken, the new constitution automatically becomes official. The 15th of February some users mention is the deadline for changing the name on sign posts, official documents, etc. and not when the name change happens.StevenHal (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: as the user who added the notice suggesting WP:MOSMAC does not apply here, I would like to say that I did so based on a short discussion at WT:MOSMAC and the apparent strong consensus to move here. It is not endorsed or sanctioned by ARBCOM. Danski454 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move now We waited for what now HAS happened. And please no nonsense about waiting for more certainty etc. I would like to remind that the current name of the article is not a good solution, it is just the fruit of a consensus. So the change is not only the right thing because it is a done deal but it also solves this issue. --APG1984 (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The naming dispute as a whole is most certainly NOT resolved by this change or the Prespa agreement. I know that many in Greece will still refuse to refer to the FYROM people as "North Macedonian". Even THAT will be going to far for them. Similarly, in FYROM many will refuse to give up the claim to their state being called "Macedonia" commonly. This article change and the Prespa Agreement as a whole certainly go a long way to helping bring about a compromise between the extreme views on either side, but to assume this is the complete end of the Macedonia naming dispute is folly. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this comment. But : right now the UN name is FYROM and the constitutional name is Macedonia and Greece refused it categorically; WP chose Republic of Macedonia as a concensual option which is seen as offensive by Greeks. All this was only somewhat satisfactory you will agree with me; yet it was the only option. North Macedonia might not solve the dispute in peoples' hearts but has the advantage of being accepted by both countries which solves all the above that is why we need to change. Otherwise what? After arguing for years, WP will end up keeping a partially satisfactory solution stemming from a State driven dispute versus the solution accepted by the said states?... --APG1984 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying that "North Macedoina" is a form that should not be adopted here or on wikipedia as a whole (I actually think it is a fiar compromise personally). But what i am saying is that there÷ are many many people that this is still unacceptable to. To consider the dispute as a whole to be "resolved" would be a mistake, and we should anticipate that there will be many disruptive edits made to articles refering to "Macedonia" in future after all these changes will seemingly go forward now. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually the Naming Dispute has been resolved. If some nationalists from both sides, as well as regular citizens who are ignorant of the Prespa Agreement and the realities in the region, have trouble grasping this, then I am afraid not even Wikipedia can help them.. All what we can do is acknowledge that the naming dispute has been RESOLVED and it is time to move ahead, while fortifying the Project from the attacks and disruptions from nationalists of both sides. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to North Macedonia. It's the clearest solution at this point.--MarshalN20 🕊 15:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to North Macedonia. --Sharouser (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to North Macedonia per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to North Macedonia per above rational. Garuda28 (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move for reasons stated above. Claims that the country has not officially informed the UN or the international community are incorrect - they are very busy changing it everywhere. At least I got my passport stamped under the old name. Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is just in. North Macedonia has started changing the signs at the border crossings with Greece. [31] Weatherextremes (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Already happened yesterday. It's mentioned above. Antondimak (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    • This is the first article with a photo showing the actual new signs Weatherextremes (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Update: The Austrian "Der Standard", sourcing the APA, writes the name "North Macedonia" is now official. Antondimak (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Update:The Guardian has the first ever article referring to the country as North Macedonia for a piece unrelated to the dispute [32] Weatherextremes (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move per WP:OFFICIALNAME, the page would only be moved after the 15th regardless should it be moved, per requested moves. Lazz_R 21:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until it clearly becomes the commonly used name. Paul August 21:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move. This move request won't be closed until after the 15th anyway. COMMONNAME isn't the issue because of the MOSMAC mess. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Macedonia's accession to NATO I was about to !vote oppose on the grounds that the Republic won't start using the name North Macedonia until their accession to NATO, per sources. New sources show that Greece has - at long last - approved that Macedonia joins NATO under the name North Macedonia. The Republic of Macedonia will finally begin to refer to itself as North Macedonia, and we no longer need to put "Republic of" in the title, and - as soon as the UN recognizes the name change (which may have already happened) - we can finally cease our use of "FYROM" for all intents and purposes. I've been !voting "wait" on the many proposals to change the article's name over the last year, but there's nothing left to wait for. Strong support. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. Unlike non-English-language official forms, Cote D'Ivoire and Timor Leste, the form "North Macedonia" is in English in the same manner as the previous form, "Republic of Macedonia", which is not ingrained among English speakers to such a degree that the revised form cannot be easily assimilated.    Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 22:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Way late to the conversation but Wikiproject countries had to deal with something similar a long time ago. Why not name the article Macedonia (country)...like we have done with Georgia (country) and we can add the official title in the lead when all is done. We don't normally use long names for countries ...we redirect official names and title name's French Republic... Dominion of Canada. --Moxy (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
But the new short name of the country is "North Macedonia" not "Macedonia". --Glentamara (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"Macedonia (country)" was a contender at the big 2009 RfC, but lost out against "Republic of Macedonia". If we had chosen it back then, we could now sit back and wait until we have evidence that "North Macedonia" has really ousted "Macedonia" as the "common name" in everyday use in English (which may or may not happen soon), but since we went for the other disambiguator that also happened to be the then-current official name, we'll now have to update it somehow when that official name ceases to be valid. Fut.Perf. 09:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctand and conditional move the earliest on 22 February for the following reasons: 1) The current thread should stay open for at least 10 more days, so that the Verbal Note of the Hellenic Republic is sent to Skopje (this is expected to happen today), and, most importantly, until North Macedonia publishes the constitutional changes, confirms that they are in force and starts implementing them. We must have some concrete signs that Skopje and the international community commence indeed to use the new name. Some publishment in the MFA of NM using the new name is definitely not enough, when the Ministry in question continues to officially use (e.g. in its banner) the name "Republic of Macedonia". 2) This thread and the highly expected comprehensive RFC for the overall naming conventions should be synchronised. This is a good beginning, but I strongly believe that a proper RfC revisiting/revising MOSMAC should be expedited and somehow synchronized with this discussion. Unlike most users here, whose opinion I respect, I firmly stand my opinion that the focus should be on the overall naming conventions, whose part is this article. Again unlike most users here, I don't see MOSMAC as "moot" or "irrelevant", and I thus share the concerns of users Argean and Kahastok. On this question, I would personally appreciate and welcome the input of users with long experience on ArbCom-initiated/related procedures (e.g. Paul August above). I will close my post repeating the same question I made in the identical RfM some days ago: Why the rush?Yannismarou (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to North Macedonia once the name becomes official. Deuteranopia (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to North Macedonia. The name has become official, signboards are being changed--Kostisl (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move There is no need to wait any longer it is now guarantee that FYROM will change the name as soon as possible because we do not need to wait for any more votes that will determine the name change. All procedures and steps have been taken in order for the name change and is coming to affect very shortly sometime this week. FYROM has already started to change signs to North Macedonia[1][2] on the borders it no longer refers to itself as FYROM anymore.(Kibrislimehmet) 18:14 11 February 2019. —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move It is the right time and the best solution now. User:llympios (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilympios (talkcontribs) 21:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move; within a few days nobody's going to be using "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia" to refer to the country in current usage (except people who customarily are out of date, e.g. people who use the present tense to talk about "Zaïre" or "Czechoslovakia" in 2019), and when there's no relevant disambiguation problem, it would be absurd to use a term that's neither official nor currently common. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move It is now official.--Sp!ros (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to North Macedonia. A picture here shows the previous lettering removed from the main government building in Skopje, before a public speech where Prime Minister Zaev referred to his own country as "North Macedonia". As said higher up, similar changes have happened at the border, and North Macedonia has said they sent notifications to the UN Secretariat and member states informing them of the name change and of the end of the dispute. Place Clichy (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Vlada.mk the official website of the Government now displays North Macedonias as the name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.19.50 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/macedonia-is-officially-renamed-north-macedonia/2019/02/12/dfc82652-2ef7-11e9-8781-763619f12cb4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.92c9b085a297 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.194.114 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Move Announcement of the Government of the Republic of North Macedonia[1] for entry into force of the Final Agreement, Constitutional Amendments and Constitutional Law for Implementation of Amendments
We hereby announce that as of today, February 12th 2019, the Final Agreement for Resolving the Differences as Described in United Nations Security Resolutions 817 (1993) and 845 (1993), the Termination of the Interim Accord of 1995, and the Establishment of a Strategic Partnership Between the Parties enters into force and this was duly published in the Official Gazette by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Furthermore, we also inform that the conditions for entry into force of amendments XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV and XXXVI of the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia and the Constitutional Law for implementation of the Amendments XXXIII to XXXVI of the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia which the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia adopted on January 11th 2019 are met. These shall enter into force today, on February 12th 2019 together with the duly publication made by the Government in the Official Gazette.
Therewith begins the fulfillment of the obligations arising from the Final Agreement and constitutional amendments. The initial decisions in relation to the necessary measures and activities for fulfillment of the above-mentioned obligations shall be presented in a Communique published by the Inter-Ministerial Working Group for fulfillment of the obligations stipulated in the Final Agreement. Maleizmene (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move now to North Macedonia. It is know official as many government officials know use the term 'North Macedonia'. Republic of Macedonia does not exist anymore, the new constitutional name is Republic of North Macedonia. andreasgrk (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move now. Absolutely no reason to wait. Libhye (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move The Government of the Republic of North Macedonia has announced that the agreement entered into force as of 12 February 2019. --StanProg (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment What will happened if after obtaining a full membership in NATO, when all 29 Parliaments ratify Prespa Agreement in all member-states of NATO, one contractor, say Republic of North Macedonia decides to terminate the Prespa Agreement? Will than new country be expelled from NATO? What will happened in UN, again FYROM? 109.93.112.195 (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Prespa Agreement is now part of Constitution, any such move would require Constitutional amendment and I reckon in that case it would constitute expulsion from NATO. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Due to overwhelming consensus to move now (and not wait any longer) I am going to move and close this discussion now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move Even if the new name doesn't catch on, "North Macedonia" is still less cumbersome than "Republic of Macedonia". Steinbach (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2019 (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.

RFC on updating WP:MOSMAC[edit]

A discussion to draft an RFC for a newly reviewed/updated WP:MOSMAC has been initiated here. All editors that have suggestions on how the naming conventions could or should be renewed, based on the recent developments related to the ratification and the approaching implementation of Prespa agreement are more than welcome to contribute. --Argean (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Demonyms[edit]

I just added "North Macedonian" as a secondary demonym in the infobox, linking to Demographics of the Republic of Macedonia. This was a bold change, so if another editor feels strongly about it, they're obviously welcome to revert and discuss here. But I've observed this new demonym already coming into usage, while at the same time "Macedonian" is still used by some sources. Examples: Balkan Insight The Guardian Euronews New Europe Ekathimerini ABC News I think it's appropriate at this time to list both. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

For the reasons that I explained in my post at the section below, I feel that there should be a prior discussion on the introduction of the demonym "North Macedonians". I don't think that the addition is justified, since the sources that you cited use the term as an adjectival reference either to the State or to associated nouns, such as the "Constitution", the "Prime Minister", the "vehicles", and not as a demonym that per definition refers to people. Also I can't see how the term "North Macedonians" links to the "Demographics of Republic of Macedonia": it seems completely out of context and inconsistent, as well as a deviation from the current effort to reach a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia). --Argean (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Kudzu1 I totally disagree with the change made. The Prespa agreement does not include demonyms and ethnicity. If we expand on other topics other than those provided in this agreement then we will never find any consensus. The issue of demonyms has long been resolved here in wikipedia and there is no reason why we should reopen these topics again, especially without agreeing here. Let's focus once on the article's name and then move on to the other topics because there is confusion here in the Talk Page so it's difficult to follow the discussions. Bes-ARTTalk 21:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Whether the Prespa Agreement says we can use it is irrelevant really, Wikipedia operates according to what is commonly used in English. When the Interim Accord was in effect no one rushed to change the name of the article to "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" on account of what the agreement said; instead we used what people use commonly, and North Macedonian is starting to make its appearance in English. --Michail (blah) 18:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed the Prespa agreement is irrelevant. The introduction of the demonym "North Macedonians" is currently WP:OR because there are not enough reliable sources that indicate that the demonym "North Macedonians" is currently used as WP:COMMONNAME to refer to people that live in or come from the country being renamed to "North Macedonia". On the other hand the adjectival reference "North Macedonian" is indeed being used by various sources to refer to the state and associated nouns such as the "Constitution", the "Capital city", the "NATO membership", the "Parliament" or official organs including ranks, such as the the "Goverment", the "Prime Minister", the "Ministers". None of the above uses though constitutes an established use of the term as demonym, but obviously the possibility that such use will eventually be established in the future cannot be excluded (but we are not WP:CRYSTALBALL). --Argean (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Kudzu1, I totally agree with your change, and that's shouldn't be the second demonym, but the first and only. The demonym refers to the residents or nationals od one country and the only demonym who can describe all residents of the country North Macedonia is North Macedonian/s. Btw, the link for this demonym should go to the demographics of North Macedonia, that is and suggested to the many of the articles about the ethnic groups. Here is one example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelanders On the top writes: This article is about Icelanders as an ethnic group. For information about residents or nationals of Iceland, see Demographics of Iceland. Sashko1999 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be added as a secondary demonym to avoid confusion with state-related affairs. According to the Prespa Agreement, the nationality given is Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia so one could argue that 'North' is part of the nationality as well. Also, according to the agreement, everything state and institution-related such as parliament, assembly, national football team etc. should make use of 'North Macedonian' instead of Macedonian. On the other hand, demonym does not have to do necessarily with the nationality of an international agreement and I accept that. But consider the confusion that will be created if 'Macedonian' is used to describe the prime minister or a politician of North Macedonia that holds office. It is illogical for a 'Macedonian politician' to be the prime minister of NORTH Macedonia. Similarly, a South Korean politician is the prime minister of South Korea. In both instances, South Korean is definitely Korean and North Macedonian is Macedonian but without the geographical characterisation, it would be very vague and unclear as there is no country simply called Macedonia or Korea. People could also argue that there is no other state in the world named South Macedonia to make this differentiation necessary. But 'North' should not be used to make a distinction between North and South (as in the Korean example) but to make a person such as a politician/footballer/etc. to correspond to his/her respective country, in this instance North Macedonia. Summing up, I believe that both should be used depending on the occasion (e.g. Macedonian singer, North Macedonian politician). Therefore, I believe that adding it a secondary demonym is the best thing that can be done. andreasgrk 20:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Why does the Prespa agreement avoid the adjective "North Macedonian"?[edit]

This may be mostly a matter of personal curiosity, but it might also be informative for all the ongoing discussions about demonyms, adjectival forms etc. we've had here: Has anybody seen a reliably sourced explanation anywhere about exactly why the Prespa Agreement seems so eager to avoid the adjectival form "North Macedonian"? In the two passages in the treaty where that adjective would be expected, about the "adjectival reference" to the state and about the nationality, the treaty goes to great lengths prescribing different, and rather cumbersome, forms. For the nationality, it prescribes the strange double form "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia"; for the "adjectival reference", it prescribes the possessive construction "of North Macedonia" (even going so far as to bend the terms of English grammar, calling something "adjectival" that grammatically quite plainly isn't). In both places, it seems as if the authors were trying hard to avoid what in English would be the obvious, natural adjectival derivative of a state called "North Macedonia": "North Macedonian". Does anybody know why? Personally, I cannot think of any reason why either side would see any political problem with the implications of that adjective (once the noun "North Macedonia" is accepted). Is it just that either the Macedonian or the Greek language don't have a ready adjectival equivalent of a compound adjective like "North Macedonian"? (In Greek you could certainly form "βορειομακεδονικός" or "βορειομακεδόνας", couldn't you?)

Please don't misunderstand this thread as an invitation to discuss whether we in Wikipedia should feel free to use the natural adjective; obviously we should. Fut.Perf. 19:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • In both languages the adjectival version is natural, the treaty deliberately tries to aviod it. That is most probably because there needs to be a clear distinction between government organs and nationality, because only for the latter is plain "Macedonian" allowed. Antondimak (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know if there is a straightforward answer to this question, but it seems that it was part of the negotiation. Zoran Zaev has been stating We are not becoming North-Macedonians because it is clearly designated that we are Macedonians, who speak the Macedonian language. Some Greek media, various analysts and even the Head of the Greek opposition have accused Alexis Tsipra for bad negotiation skills on failing to impose the use of the term "North Macedonian" in the agreement. They all do acknowledge though that the agreement does not enter the term "North Macedonians" into wide public use, as Tsipras also does himself. My personal opinion is that there are 2 reasons for avoiding the explicit use of the term: the need of the citizens of North Macedonia to retain their self-identification and the fear that a possible concept of a divided nation of "North" and "South" Macedonians will emerge and will not eliminate various irredentist claims (such as this one). --Argean (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
PS. In Greek I'm tempted to use the term "Βορειομακεδόνες", because there is no easy alternative and I don't know if it will cause major controversies (although some with more nationalist positions even reject this term [34]). I've been using the term "Σλαβομακεδόνες" when trying to be neutral in my native language. But in English I feel very awkward to use the term "North Macedonians" and prepared to hear the question: "Are you a South Macedonian then?". --Argean (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The adjective North Macedonian implies that the nation is called North Macedonian, and that is strongly avoided with the agreement, the nation remained Macedonian and the nationality is Macedonian / citizens of North Macedonia while the adjective for the government institutions will be 'of North Macedonia' which is logical as to avoid mix ups. I also think Wikipedia should abide these rules and use 'of North Macedonia' wherever possible.Macedonicus (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand how North Macedonian implies that the nation is called North Macedonian. North Macedonian is the adjective to North Macedonia like South Dakotan is the adjective to South Dakota. Though Hungary's foreign ministry seems a bit confused. --Michail (blah) 21:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure that the Hungarian MFA just made a typo. By the way since we are opening the discussion on demonyms I would like to add a source that presents a more scientific approach on the definition of demonyms including nationality-based demonyms and other types of demonyms that include state-based demonyms, such the example of South Dakotans. I'm not sure how we can combine the use of a nationality-based demonym "Macedonians" and a geographic/state-based demonym "North Macedonians" to refer to the same people, without implying that the geographic demonym is part of a greater "Macedonian" nation. The renaming issue has always been a complicated matter and hindered by various nationalistic and irredentist claims [35]. The view that Greek Macedonia should be renamed to "South Macedonia" to follow the rename of the country to its north, has already been suggested ([36], [37]), and I can see more people wondering in the future if they are in "North" or "South" Macedonia, just like these Americans here (my apologies, the source is in Greek). So I can't see why we want to throw one more complicated issue into question, that the agreement obviously has been trying hard to avoid, and start making people wondering about "North" and "South" Macedonians... --Argean (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean The source you quoted says there are four types of demonyms, including country-based demonyms such as Californians. I'm not saying that North Macedonians should replace Macedonians (ethnic group); I'm saying that in certain circumstances North Macedonian is the natural adjectival form or demonym to be used and in those circumstances Macedonian is not as appropriate. MRT 1 is a North Macedonian TV station but it is not a Macedonian TV station since it is, you know, inanimate and doesn't have a national consciousness. Similarly Zaev is the North Macedonian Prime Minister (you can see it used here and here), but he is also a Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of Macedonia. Zaev can be both; it is a case of what is more relevant? Gruevski's article for example links "Macedonian" to "Republic of Macedonia". This is clearly country-based, so North Macedonian is the correct adjectival form. --Michail (blah) 23:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Philly boy92 I really don't like to argue because we do agree on the use of adjectival forms, but we clearly have a different understanding of the word demonym. Obviously for me it applies only to people (and all the sources that I was able to find and read), but for you it can apply to objects, to institutions, to official organs, to ideas and probably anything else. I will stop having any more objections to follow your definition of "demonym", if you can provide me some good and reliable sources that your definition is the most common and appropriate one. --Argean (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean I am simply trying to establish that the demonym is not used willy nilly as the de facto adjectival reference regardless if whether a demonym or adjectival form of the state is relevant. --Michail (blah) 00:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Can we please move discussions about the demonym and/or adjectival form into the place it belongs, at WT:MOSMAC? This section was raised due to Fut.Perf. asking a question about why the Prespa avoided "North Macedonian", which others and myself have attempted to answer below. Yes, the difference between demonym/adjectival form needs discussing, but that should take place at WT:MOSMAC.
What about Northern Ireland? Are they Northern Irish? or we just call them Irish? Bes-ARTTalk 22:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Are they Northern Irish? yes. --Michail (blah) 22:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh that's a great example if you want to make things complicated. I think that 29,4% of the people there will probably agree. I'm not sure how the 48,4% that identify as British and the 29,4% that identify as Irish will feel about that. By the way is there any reason that we don't have a demonym in the infobox of Northern Ireland? --Argean (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
When it is in reference to Northern Ireland as a political entity it is always Northern Irish. Northern Irish as a national identity is complicated and does not apply to everyone. --Michail (blah) 23:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
So is Northern Irish a demonym or an adjectival reference? If it is a demonym (which I don't object since it has been used colloquially, but definitely not officially), is it a nationality-based or a state-based one? Anyway, these are just rhetoric questions. But you made the case obvious, it is a complicated issue, and it will remain such. And I expect the same for the use of "North Macedonian(s)". --Argean (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Michail Then how can a citizen of Carndonagh be called? Is he also a Northern Irish? Or is he a Northern Irish of Ireland while on the other side of the border are Northern Irish of Northern Ireland? On the other hand, the success of this agreement is precisely the non-inclusion of such terms. We all know that a Macedonian (at least the absolute majority) would never accept to be called North Macedonian. Albanians, Serbs, Turks and others are also not considered North Macedonians. Then why should we impose such demonym when they do not accept it, the agreement does not include it and as @Argean said, it has other meaning. Bes-ARTTalk 23:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Bes-ART I don't understand where you are going with this. Northern Irish as an adjective only applies to people or institutions related to Northern Ireland as a state (not to the north of Ireland), and sometimes it applies to some people as a regional identity, although not all people of Northern Ireland are Northern Irish. Nor are they all Irish as you said earlier. What are you trying to say with Northern Ireland? You questioned if we just call them Irish?, which is a very quick way to get into trouble in Belfast. --Michail (blah) 00:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing "Northern Ireland" and "northern Ireland". --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Albanian parties in Macedonia won the concession from Zaev that Macedonian would also refer to citizenship (as not everyone belongs to the Macedonian ethnicity in the country) apart from its uses for ethnicity. There was nothing about a "north" being used in reference to the people. This is complicated i admit, but the way its outlined in the Prespa agreement is the way forward. Leaving it as Macedonian (as is now in wiki) is the way to proceed.Resnjari (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The Irish question can easily be solved by calling them Neo-Goidelic people rather than Northern or Southern Irish. I do not understand how the Irish, let alone the English, a Germanic people, came to think they had the right to call themselves British, thus expropriating the cultural heritage of the Bretons. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a lot wrong with what was just said here by Aymatth2, but I will simply point out that ethnological and linguistic changes that occurred over 1000 years ago can be pretty safely stated to now have been set in stone at this point. The concept that the "English" have 'no right' to call themselves "British" would be considered a fringe view at best. - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The Bretons will doubtless make their position clear when the "British" apply for readmission to the EU. Vive la Bretagne! Aymatth2 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Answer to @Future Perfect at Sunrise: and everyone here regarding Prespa Agreement avoiding the adjective "North Macedonian": I happen to know why the adjective North Macedonian for the state was avoided in the Prespa Agreement but I am not sure if I can make everyone understand it - those who do not follow the Balkan political affairs which are notorious for their very complicated nature and mindset/logics, may actually have harder time understanding my explanation. This avoidance was done intentionally, for domestic reasons. The Zaev government was worried that the explicit mention of the adjective North Macedonian in the Prespa Agreement, would give the chance to the opponents (primarily the leading opposition party VMRO-DPMNE which staunchly opposes the Prespa Agreement) to undermine from the start the Zaev's campaign that "We give up on the name Macedonia but everyone recognizes us as Macedonians, even Greece". Due to strong presence of nationalism, political manipulation and prevailing populism in the Balkans, "compromise equalizes betrayal" in the mindset of the Balkan people when it comes to sensitive issues such as identity and heritage, and thus, there were legit fears that the opponents of the Prespa Agreement would spread misinformation about the "North Macedonian" (which refers to the state) being meant to be used for the citizens/ethnic group as well. Zaev was afraid the term North Macedonian would be misunderstood and thus, overshadow the gains of the Prespa Agreement for the Macedonian side, and jeopardise or undermine severely any chances of the Agreement being accepted/tolerated by the public. I apologize for my poor english skills but I tried to explain it as clearly as I remembered.
EDIT: The effort to avoid the adjective "North Macedonian" altogether, may have prevented VMRO-DPMNE in Macedonia from overshadowing the deal's gains for the Macedonian side by accusing Zaev of giving up Macedonian identity to Greeks, but unfortunately, it gave New Democracy in Greece the opportunity to accuse the Tsipras government that he "gave up on erga omnes" which means "North Macedonian" as an adjective for the state. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident, Please can you rollback the change made by Kudzu1 since there is no consensus about that. Thanks :) Bes-ARTTalk 00:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident Oh yes, Bes-ART is right. This was an unexplained and unilateral move and I haven't seen anyone supporting it. --Argean (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Summary Answer: I have had an interest in this for years and, basically, Greeks overall HATE the northerners using the term "Macedonian" as an ethnicity describing term (for many reasons, but the most important are irredentist), but the greek negotiators and government were willing to swallow this term to come to some kind of an agreement with the northerners. To the northerners they could not give up on the idea of calling themselves "Macedonian", since so much of their identity has been built up around this singular label. So for this, and internal political reasons, they stuck to their guns on this one single point, but compromised on the actual name of the country by adding the "North" qualifier to it, and compromising on the claim they made to link themselves directly to the historic Ancient Macedon state. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Well said SilentResident. I've been trying to find a source in English that would contain that information, but you summarized everything very well. At least what has been reported in the Greek media, because I'm sure that there is much more depth around the decision to avoid the explicit use of the term in the agreement. But basically everything is associated with an effort to reduce the potential nationalistic complications in the sensitive Balkan region. And additionally don't forget that Alexis Tsipras has been constantly arguing that with the agreement has managed to eliminate any potential misappropriate use of the term "Macedonian" and any potential irredentist claims - so obviously there have been mutual steps for a compromise that would keep the sensitive balance in the area as intact as possible. And apparently the use of the term "North Macedonian(s)" was a complicated part of this compromise, that was handled (or rather circumvented) with the introduction of complex definitions such as the term used for the nationality and the strange choice of "adjectival reference" to the state, etc. --Argean (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
At least the media do use the term without problem, so we can too, if we reach a consensus and MOSMAC is updated. Edit: Also reverted the edits on the article. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The question posed looks to me as invitation to state the obvious: the term "North Macedonian" is avoided because the "North Macedonian" side would not accept it, and because otherwise the constitutional changes would not have been voted with a 2/3 super majority in the "North Macedonian" Parliament.Yannismarou (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Answer to @Future Perfect at Sunrise:: I think that Argean's and Macedonicus's are to the point. It's basically an identity issue. Ethnic Macedonians, but also other ethnicities that comprise the Macedonian nationality fear that normalizing 'North Macedonian' will eventually spread to to include the people, the language, the culture and other sensitive issues that they have explicitely agreed to remain plain 'Macedonian. I do hope that in the following days the both government(s) reiterate and clarify their positions on the adjectival use. Also, there's no indication so far that North Macedonian is anywhere near to replace 'Macedonian government' in common usage. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not go by what ethnic Macedonians most commonly use, but by what is most common in English. If we start using what the ethnic Macedonians use to refer to themselves as the new standard of WP:COMMONNAME, then it raises questions as to why Wikipedia gets to respect the right of ethnic Macedonians to self-identify as Macedonian and not that of the Macedonians (Greek), who outnumber ethnic Macedonians by a million. North Macedonian is entering the vocabulary as an adjectival reference, and if it becomes dominant then that is what Wikipedia should use, much like it reasoned that it would use Macedonia as the name of the country because it is most common. Also, a google search is not really reliable enough for this issue. How do you filter which of these articles have been published since Friday and not before? If you set the search so that it's limited to last week, the number of results for "the macedonian government" are limited to 6 pages, the same number as "the north macedonian government". It's too early for this. --Michail (blah) 12:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I was just answering @Future Perfect at Sunrise: question. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Prespa agreement avoid the adjective "North Macedonian just from political reasons, on that way the North Macedonian Government thought that the agreement will pass easier to the ethnic Macedonians. In the agreement there is a just the term of North Macedonia, but there is no any difference for example between the Government of North Macedonia or the North Macedonian Government, practicly is the same and because the media use both terms. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Name Has Changed[edit]

It is over. The North Macedonian Foreign Minister has publicly announced it. North Macedonia got the last papers from Greece and the change is official. Here is his twitter message https://twitter.com/Dimitrov_Nikola/status/1095381648844169217?s=19

Why isn't the title of the page 'Republic of North Macedonia'? Ronbb345 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

So the articled moved to Republic of Macedonia, which is neither the common nor the official name anymore. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I would assume that this is either a mistake or there hasn't a final decision in regards to the changing of the term on the page yet? Ronbb345 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

hasn't been*

Excuse me. Ronbb345 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, just have a look a few sections above this one. There's a "requested move" process ongoing just now. We usually take a couple of days time for decisions like that on Wikipedia; there's no rush. Fut.Perf. 20:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the original page for the discussion about changing the original page. Newcomers will get confused as this will be the first time they read about this. For those who are not involved with the issue, they will only know/look for one country, North Macedonia. Time to change, no need to wait for the State Department to log in and do the changes, wiki... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.147.18 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Comment: Whether the article is moved or not, will depend on the outcome of voting in the February 8's Move Request which has to be completed first. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

And how is that "completed"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.147.18 (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
A move Request must stay open at least a full week and it cannot be completed in less than 7 days since its initiation. It was opened in 8 February and it is expected that it will be completed by 15 February or later. If there is consensus in that Move Request for moving the article from the old name to the new one, then the progress will be completed. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Dutch official public news channel NOS also mentioned it; it seems official. The Republic of North-Macedonia has been born. [2] 217.123.76.65 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

References

I do not understand what you are trying to tell us. The article cannot be renamed until the February 8's Move Request is over. That will happen from 15 February and ownards. Read above please. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Typical bureaucratic nonsense. Make everything as complicated as possible and never use common sense. --188.155.242.88 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding what I said. Ronbb345 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Announcement of the Government of the Republic of North Macedonia for entry into force of the Final Agreement, Constitutional Amendments and Constitutional Law for Implementation of Amendments

  • We hereby announce that as of today, February 12th 2019, the Final Agreement for Resolving the Differences as Described in United Nations Security Resolutions 817 (1993) and 845 (1993), the Termination of the Interim Accord of 1995, and the Establishment of a Strategic Partnership Between the Parties enters into force and this was duly published in the Official Gazette by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Furthermore, we also inform that the conditions for entry into force of amendments XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV and XXXVI of the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia and the Constitutional Law for implementation of the Amendments XXXIII to XXXVI of the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia which the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia adopted on January 11th 2019 are met. These shall enter into force today, on February 12th 2019 together with the duly publication made by the Government in the Official Gazette.

Therewith begins the fulfillment of the obligations arising from the Final Agreement and constitutional amendments. The initial decisions in relation to the necessary measures and activities for fulfillment of the above-mentioned obligations shall be presented in a Communique published by the Inter-Ministerial Working Group for fulfillment of the obligations stipulated in the Final Agreement. Maleizmene (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There is NO Republic of Macedonia anymore[edit]

There is NO Republic of Macedonia anymore. The name of article is about non existing country. 73.158.103.169 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What a hysterical reaction. Please have a little patience. BTW: Macedonia is still a common name for the country.--Wester (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t understand how that’s a hysterical reaction. I’ve been watching this whole conversation for awhile now. The name has clearly changed from the Perspectice of both Greece and Macadonia so there are several links showing this and I just saw one recently showing them changing the name at the border. So why are we still having a conversation about this it takes 2 minutes to change the name whoever has the power to do it already. Regardless of its still a common name it is not the official name anymore so let’s change it already this is getting ridicules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach143 (talkcontribs) 23:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Lol what a silly argument. It will remain a common name for years if not even decades as people, definitely this and former generations will just keep calling it Macedonia anyways.2A02:A03F:4C02:A400:615B:ABCD:8910:85B7 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No you have a silly argument based on nothing. The website changed its legal name border crossings have changed the name. Greece recognizes it as the new legal name. The nation itself is now called Northern Macidonida why is this so hard for you to understand? Change it. Regardless if “It’s a common name” Agajn that’s not the point. Dick and cock are common names for Penis but the official wiki page labels it Penis because that’s the scientific term that’s recognized. So in this case Northern Macadonia is now the legal recognized name so this is a closed argument. Make the change anyone ignoring to do that is apparently okay with ignoring the current real world reality.

If you are going to advocate for the new name at least get it right "North" not "Northern" 70.59.70.125 (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm a different person and I agree with you you know. I said it was a silly argument just because I agree with you that the official name should be used instantly and with my reply saying it's going to stay a common name for decades I meant that it's no argument for the page to stay called "republic of Macedonia" just on the basis of it still being a common name -> since it will remain a common name for decades, so does that mean we never have to change the pages name? See that's what I meant.2A02:A03F:4C02:A400:615B:ABCD:8910:85B7 (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

In other words I said that the argument of Wester was silly:2A02:A03F:4C02:A400:615B:ABCD:8910:85B7 (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you know Ivory Coast, Cape Verde and North Korea are officially known as Côte d'Ivoire, Cabo Verde and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Also the Czech Republic has tried to introduce a new short name Czechia, which nobody uses so the article is still Czech Republic. Wikipedia has a policy of using common names, not necessary official names. Also, the position of Greece is quite irrelevant since Macedonia is a sovereign nation that has the right to name itself (while other sovereign nations have the right of not recognising that country or name). The agreement with Greece is made in bona fida (because Greece has veto right on accession on multiple international organisations), but it's still Macedonia's decision. It's about to see whitch name will stick, either Macedonia or North Macedonia. --Wester (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Every name change has a different context. I believe that Wikipedia addresses each country name change as an individual case: unlike the Czech Republic/Czechia and Eswatini/Swaziland, which (if I recall correctly) had no major naming disputes in the first place, the change from the Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia was based on a binding agreement to try and resolve an long-lasting naming dispute. --Marianian(talk) 02:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah well in the case of North Korea, yes the DPRK is the official name but it's the full name like you would say Kingdom of Belgium, United States of America though the shorter names like North Korea and the United States are also used for official purposes and are not just limited to common use, same for Czechia it's just the short name for the Czech republic. Now the difference with North Macedonia is that it's normal everyone will keep calling it Macedonia because it just changed but people of the next generations will be taught it to be North Macedonia to make the distinction with Greek Macedonia. You do have a point on the matter of Ivory Coast and Cape Verde in which I believe the titles have been chosen for the sake of language though it wouldn't be wrong to name their pages after the shorter form of their official name. I believe North Macedonia, because of politics, will fall out of mainsteam use as in newspapers, televised news etc. while it will still be used amongst people in a regular conversation while Ivory Coast and Cape Verde are still in use for tourism, news etc. Although you are correct for those two cases that it's their sole official name even used by the UN.2A02:A03F:4C02:A400:80E5:4A61:3995:1148 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Official government website has been renamed[edit]

Official government website has been renamed to "Government of North Macedonia": https://vlada.mk/node/16763?ln=en-gb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europarliament (talkcontribs) 22:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  • The linked page has "Republic of North Macedonia" at the top and "Republic of Macedonia" at the bottom. There is no doubt that the change is in progress, and also obvious that it will take time for the change to propagate. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It's actually odd/bizarre that the wiki page is still named "Republic of Macedonia" even though under the External Links section of the same page, it directs you to the official website of the "Republic of North Macedonia". Moreover, all headers of all three language versions of the website (Macedonian, Albanian, English) have been remained in line with the country's new constitutional name: Republic of North Macedonia. Therefore, why is there still a discussion here about this?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europarliament (talkcontribs) 23:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, while there is overwhelming consensus for renaming this page to North Macedonia and most editors appear to favor doing this sooner rather than later, there are those who insist on following a specific Wikipedia process for controversial names (that was applied to this page because FYROM ↔ Republic of Macedonia was controversial.) I would argue that this no longer applies, because North Macedonia isn’t really controversial, as this discussion appears to show, but I don’t get to make this call. —ThorstenNY (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • On the very top of this discussion page it says: "Editors may not make any modifications to the official name of this country until consensus has determined that the name has officially changed." So are we still determining something that the country itself has officially announced in its official website (which has officially renamed in all language versions) and official Twitter account?!? Come on guys, let's be serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Europarliament (talkcontribs) 23:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, the name has changed. Wikipedia’s process for determining consensus on this is through the requested move initiated on 8 February (see above.) This process apparently takes at least 7 days. So we can all come back this Friday, see that there is, in fact, consensus for moving the page to North Macedonia, and move the page. Like it or not, that’s just how Wikipedia rolls. But be glad we can use this process instead of ARBCOM, which would take more than a month. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Patience please, guys. Why this rush? Just wait 2 more days, it won't hurt. That's how the Move Request works: it should have a minimal duration of 7 days for everyone to be able to participate in it. 15 February isn't as far as you may think, is only 2 days from today. @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, is the outcome of this Move Request substantial enough for moving the article, or do we have to wait for the Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC to be completed as well? -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing page name move discussion, as the name listed in the infobox is supposed the the entity's official name, I request, now that the name change to "North Macedonia" is official, that the name in the infobox be edited to read "Republic of North Macedonia", the new long-form official name.Pizzaguy875 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Change of country's name[edit]

You may have redirected the old page Macedonia to North Macedonia, but the country's official name should be changed through the whole text. The title may be North Macedonia, but it is mentioned as Macedonia throughout the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.30.189 (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The article has only just been moved so I am sure the text will be updated very soon — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2019[edit]

I propose to change where it reads "as a result of an ongoing dispute with Greece over the use of the name Macedonia" to "as a result of a dispute with Greece over the use of the name Macedonia" since the dispute is now settled, ratified and implemented. 131.180.19.236 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Country abbreviation is MK or MKD, not NMK[edit]

NMK is an informal bona fide solution for the vehicle plates of North Macedonia, the country code remains MK and MKD, so I suggest using it in the first sentence of the main article instead of NMK. Macedonicus (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Stick with iso code MK (which .mk came from) and MKD (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and ISO 3166-1 alpha-3), unless new reliable source claimed the abbreviation had officially changed to NMK . Matthew hk (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Article[edit]

[38] according to this "The procedure to complete constitutional changes is lengthy and requires several rounds of voting, with Friday’s being just the first stage. The procedure should be completed by January at the latest." it may not be complete until Jan 2020 70.59.70.125 (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

‘January’ in that article refers to January 2019. Libhye (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2019[edit]

Add this link "https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/25/its-time-for-macedonia-to-accept-compromise/" as a citation for the end of the first paragraph of section 4.5. This link verifies the claims made. Avieagle (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done but it is likely that this source isn't enough and that more sources may be needed. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in Albanian name of the Republic of North Macedonia[edit]

Official long name is "Republika e Maqedonisë së Veriut". VeriUt, not VeriOt. Short name is "Maqedonia e Veriut"

Not done. Do you have any sources proving this? Editors say that is how the official website spells it. [[39]]. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

They are right. A simple check on the Albanian edition of the official government site has it down with U and not an O

https://vlada.mk/?ln=sq Weatherextremes (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonian ( demonim )[edit]

In demonim i believe you should add North Maceonian as well to be more accurate (sinse it was signed by the North Macedonian government) end also to avoid misunderstandings. Mich. Mar. 987 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, but we still discuss about it. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Not done Being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia). Also it is demonym Matthew hk (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2019[edit]

Dimitarmkd92 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Matthew hk (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia and in Albanian, and Republic of North Macedonia no?[edit]

Why North Macedonia is written and in Albanian and Republic of North Macedonia no?, should be both or neither. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia[edit]

please change ((other uses|Macedonia)) to ((other uses|Macedonia (disambiguation)((!))Macedonia))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2019[edit]

The Republic Of North Macedonia 209.249.51.125 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. "North Macedonia" is unambiguous and not subject to the political trademarking whims of Greece, who has approved the name. --Taivo (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not done. The community's consensus in the recent Move Request was overwhelmingly in favor of North Macedonia which is more WP:COMMON than the longer official name and in line with Wikipedia's common practice to favor shorter, more common names over lengthier ones. However this may change, as it is currently being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia).-- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 February 2019[edit]

I'm making the request here because several pages are involved. The redirects listed here need to be updated to go to North Macedonia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. However, some edits are pending due to pages having Admin-level protection. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I've started unprotecting a few but haven't got through all of them yet. Fut.Perf. 13:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Demonyms[edit]

Since Albanian is the co official language maybe we could add "Maqedonas" in the demonyms kinda like how it is on the Switzerland Page? I know it's a bit different but I think it should still say it in Albanian aswell Dark pikachuu (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No.Resnjari (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2019[edit]

Please change "currency = Macedonian denar" to "currency = North Macedonian denar" because according to the Prespa Agreement (Part 1, Article 1, Paragraph 3.f)) "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 (Republic of North Macedonia/North Macedonia)". The national currency of the Republic of North Macedonia should be in line with the state's official name. StevenHal (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC open[edit]

The RfC on the naming conventions for Macedonia has opened. Please give your opinions about the proposals. Danski454 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 February 2019[edit]

Please change the redirect target from "Republic of Macedonia" to "North Macedonia". --Fippe (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89(T·C) 21:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Commonly known as Macedonia[edit]

@Europarliament: it is hardly subjective to state that this country is commonly known as "Macedonia". In fact, "Macedonia" most commonly refers to this country. The Prespa agreement doesn't change that. --Local hero talk 20:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think "remains" is a bit forceful. It's been two weeks. Just remove it altogether: From then until February 2019 its official name was the Republic of Macedonia, more commonly known as Macedonia. --Michail (blah) 20:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I share Local hero's concern that our text shouldn't imply that the name "Macedonia" is completely a thing of the past, which it clearly won't be for quite some time to come. But the sentence in question could be made much more efficient anyway: change ... from which it declared independence in September 1991. From then until February 2019, it was officially the Republic of Macedonia ... to: ... from which it declared independence in September 1991 under the name "Republic of Macedonia". That sentence will naturally lead on to the next paragraph, about UN admission, the "fYR" thing, and finally Prespa etc. Fut.Perf. 21:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I also think it's forceful and not in the spirit of the Prespa agreement, but both suggestions - either removing it altogether or making the sentence more efficient - seem appropriate. --Europarliament
Just to make one thing clear: the "spirit" of the Prespa agreement is completely, utterly irrelevant for us. We are not political agents of the governments in question. We report what names are common out there, and we ourselves follow the predominant naming practices in high-quality English-language sources; what political "spirit" these naming practices represent is of absolutely no concern to us, and shouldn't and mustn't be. Fut.Perf. 21:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
"Remains" or something to that effect, instead of "is sometimes still known as" or something similar, implies that the new name has not caught on and that Macedonia is still the common name; something which is demonstrably not true. --Michail (blah) 21:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, international organizations, states, and their respective diplomatic missions have been swift to use the new name in their communication. E.g. https://mk.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-skopje-north-macedonia-february-15-2019/ --Europarliament
You might be reading too much into it. It's rather explicit: "remains commonly known as Macedonia". This is simply true and doesn't imply that "North Macedonia" isn't coming into use as well. --Local hero talk 01:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
No I'm not, because it's simply not true, as demonstrated above. --Europarliament
What mustn't be forgotten is that firsthand reference to the country IS NOT RESTRICTED only to its own Slavic majority. As far as we Bulgarians and the other ex-Yugoslavs (chiefly Serbs for being over the northern border) are concerned, we're calling it Macedonia, end of story. The idea that one may drive from his home in Blagoevgrad to Delčevo only to report to his Bulgarian friends that he went to "Severna" would just be sardonic and make him stand out as odd. RNM will be confined to official documents and communications (written and verbal), but in shorthand, it is Macedonia both inside and outside the country among the nations relevant to Macedonians' wider society. --Edin balgarin (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
And most Greeks will continue calling it Fyrom, but here were are not editing the Bulgarian or Greek wikipedia pages, we are editing the English page. --Europarliament
Well, by that logic I doubt that native English-speakers over the night will start calling the country 'North Macedonia'. Still in the US, Canada, UK and etc. the common name of the country is Macedonia and it will take time for that to change (if it changes...). — Tom(T2ME) 10:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Europarliament. Greeks call it MANY things but mostly eschew "Macedonia". They call it Skopia, or sometimes "north" by itself. In English it will be referred to as North Macedonia in official contexts, and probably by no name otherwise as this obscure country is one that the average English speaker need never even acknowledge. Most informal mention of it in English will come from its own natives and its surrounding natives: hence Macedonia. --Edin balgarin (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
But the new name is not mentioned only in official contexts and actually, it looks to have already caught on --Europarliament
It caught on Wikipedia (for the official name of the article). That doesn't mean that English-speakers offline in this world are banning the term 'Macedonia' and use 'North Macedonia' only... So yeah, the common name still definitely remains Macedonia (at least for now) — Tom(T2ME) 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Not true. Apart from the international media, I can personally testify that here in Brussels, English speakers, French speakers, German speakers, Spanish speakers, etc. - journalists, academics, civil servants, parliamentarians, military personnel, i.e. people working in and around the EU and NATO - have started using both offline and online the new name. --Europarliament
Dear sir. I don't know how to put this without offending you or without breaching CIVIL so please forgive this remark which follows as it is not directed at you. "Here in Brussels" means shit; its importance is being magnified once again. It may come as a shock to you but many of us (both in Bulgaria and Macedonia) continue to be Pan-Slavic which means Anti-European and subsequently pro-Russian, and go about our lives not giving a monkeys about anything north or west of Slovenia (as Bulgarians we are touched by the tragic loss of Šaban Šaulić yesterday). Not every post-Warsaw Pact citizen wanted to ditch ties with Russia, and not every post-Warsaw Pact citizen wants/wanted membership of NATO/EU. As realists, we know that if not for congealment into NATO and its economic bedfellow the EU, then there would have been no point to the breakup of Yugoslavia and its subsequent wars; no point to the end of Czechoslovakia; no point to the end of the USSR, and no point to the revolutions of Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Poland, or the end of the Germanic Democratic Republic either. "North Macedonia" is merely the latest phase of one country's spaghettification from the gravitational pull of globalism as the regime is dispensing with its past when it was not controlled by the West. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a communist, but we all know that the old Eastern Bloc per its widest extent was no more about "communism v non-communism" than feudal pyramids were about equality to all subjects. Yes of course it will be North Macedonia in the UN General Assembly, in the Olympics and football tournaments, even in the Eurovision, but officialdom is where it ends. The very fact that you cite your acolytes in Brussels among the alphabet soup of EU first languages is a form of circular reasoning. But for us to whom Macedonia has relevance, when we write in English, it is Macedonia. --Edin balgarin (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Edin balgarin Bangalamania please remain civil and do not swear. Of the 52 reliable sources surveyed since 12/2/19 as part of the active active Request for Comment, 45 (86.5%) called the country North Macedonia, and 7 (13.5%) called it Macedonia. 1 in 10 does not constitute “commonly known as Macedonia”. --Michail (blah) 12:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Philly boy. With regards CIVIL. I acknowledge your comment and I was aware that I was crossing a red line, and tried to do so as cautiously as possible. With regards your survey, you have built a straw man here because what you're showing us is MEDIA. Whereas "common" means the ordinary people. I addressed these points in each post. --Edin balgarin (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Essentially what Europarliament and Philly boy92 are saying is that on Feb 12, some refresh signal was sent to every person's brain that removed "Macedonia" from their vocabulary and replaced it with "North Macedonia". Europarliament, you personal testifications are irrelevant but thanks anyway. Search for "Macedonia" anywhere, and you're most likely to get results about the country - not about anything else. I can't believe my edit could be considered inaccurate, much less controversial. --Local hero talk 12:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Well that’s a bit irrelevant because WP gauges “common usage” by reliable sources, and it is quite unfortunate indeed that since the name change, these reliable sources are overwhelmingly using North Macedonia. Are we to use any mention of Macedonia published since 1991 to prove that ‘Macedonia’ is common? It was agrees that 12 Feb should be the date from which to start to gauge which usage is common, and it’s not looking too favourably for “Macedonia”. “Still sometimes referred to” is fine. “Commonly known as” not so much. --Michail (blah) 12:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
(This is my final post for this session as I need to get moving) I think I made my point very clearly in the last post on "what is common" vs "what sources use". Just so you know, whilst the topic of "reliable sources" is wholly relative (if you don't believe it, follow the threads on Talk:White Helmets which I quit a long time ago) at the best of times, the spectrum radically increases for this type of enquiry. When selecting common names, I've seen that editors generally open the floodgates and produce Google results - the problem often being that one editor's settings are conveniently configured differently from his opponent and subsequently, his count will be "higher". But putting that aside, if I were to accept your survey on good faith (without checking it), remember that 10% is relatively significant. The point here is that "commonly" doesn't mean "most commonly", whilst "still referred to" means rare (i.e. fringe, buried somewhere but still existing). Then add to it the unequivocal colloquialisms and Macedonia far more commonly refers to the country north of Greece than Oz does Australia. --Edin balgarin (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Confusing term "Macedonia" in the article[edit]

"In June 2018, Macedonia and Greece signed the Prespa agreement, which stipulates that the country must change its name to Republic of North Macedonia erga omnes."
"The Prespa agreement, signed by Macedonia and Greece on 17 June, saw the country change its name to the Republic of North Macedonia eight months later."

Where "Macedonia" should be replaced by "the Republic of Macedonia" which is the former official name (although not officially recognized by every country and every organization). I do not see the benefit to keep it this way. I understand that in the old article this term functioned for simplicity but now in the new title it only adds confusion. In fact one of the main causes of the dispute between the two countries which ultimately led to the Prespa agreement, was exactly this confusion this naming creates towards third parties. If it is kept like this someone can very reasonably argue that in the same article where "Greek Macedonia" can be similarly replaced by the simpler and also official form "Macedonia".Clicklander (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There never was any confusion, and there is no confusion now. For ten years, we've had a guideline that very clearly says that we prefer the plain name "Macedonia" wherever that is practically unambiguous, and that we use the longer "Republic of Macedonia" where necessary. This has worked fine for our readers for ten years, because in practice in 95% of all cases "Macedonia" simply isn't ambiguous. No reader has ever been confused about it, and there's no reason to assume they would get confused now. The sentence in question is in a context where in the few preceding sentences the same country has been previously referred to under that name (with various additions) a whopping 12 times. No other possible referent of "Macedonia" is mentioned anywhere in that passage. What other "Macedonia" could possibly be meant at that point? The suggestion that any reader might be "confused" about it at that point is plainly absurd.
Let's also be very clear about one thing: Arbcom has been quite explicit that WP:NCMAC is still in force. Wherever changes are not immediately dictated by the recent renamings, we still abide by the existing guideline. And this part of the guideline is not going to change. The current emergent consensus in the naming RfC is clearly that statements in historical contexts will continue to use either "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia", and that of course implies they will continue to do so according to the same common-sense principle of good writing: the shorter form where possible, the longer form where necessary. People edit-warring against this consensus can still be topic-banned under Arbcom sanctions. Fut.Perf. 19:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"erga omnes" in lead paragraph[edit]

About this [40] reinsertion by User:Europarliament: I'm not convinced we need the specification of "erga omnes" when describing the renaming agreement in the lead paragraph. First, it's a piece of technical jargon that will be unfamiliar to most readers. Second, it's unnecessary pedantry. Sure, I'm well aware it was a hot political issue in the negotiations during some periods, but from the perspective of our readers, there's no reason to stress it at that point. There is no mention of any logical alternative (i.e. any arrangements of using different names in different contexts) anywhere near it in the text, and so our readers won't have any reason to suspect that such alternatives might even have been on the table. At this point in the text, the addition is more confusing than illuminating ~ except maybe to those of us who already know a lot about the issue; please try to step out of your own shoes and take the perspective of an unsuspecting reader. Fut.Perf. 12:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise. Is there a way in which we can agree on the opening paragraph of the article in general? It keeps changing back and forth very frequently, and it would just be best to agree on the wording of it based on consensus as opposed to people rewriting it every 2 hours. --Michail (blah) 14:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The reason that I added it is to illustrate that, as opposed to the existence of more than one name prior to the agreement as highlighted in the previous sentence - Republic of Macedonia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - the agreement has now established one single name for all uses.--Europarliament (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
But Macedonia never used different names erga ("towards") different parties. Macedonia itself only ever used its own constitutional name, even when addressing the UN. It was only third parties that referred to it in those two different ways. Fut.Perf. 14:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
And why would we use this phrase instead of saying "for all purposes"? --Khajidha (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Good suggestion - not technical and clear--Europarliament (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed: use English instead of Latin when the meaning is the same. If it's really necessary to give the legal jargon, put it in a footnote or at least further down in the body, not the lede. Jonathunder (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

But my objection still applies to the English phrase too: Macedonia never used different names for different "purposes" before, and other states normally don't do that either, so why would a reader even begin to expect it might do so now, and why would we have to explicitly state that it doesn't? Fut.Perf. 18:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed the Latin legalese. If someone thinks it's really important, put it in a footnote. Jonathunder (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Opening two paragraphs[edit]

Over the past couple of weeks the opening two paragraphs of this article have been rewritten numerous times. To avoid constant back and forth, I propose that we discuss the wording of the two opening paragraphs and deal with the points of contention through consensus. The points which editors seem to be contesting are:

  1. The inclusion of the Macedonian as well as Albanian long-form names (Република Северна Македонија/Republika e Maqedonisë së Veriut) in the lead. Some users have argued that not all that information is required, and I tend to agree that it would be better to include the long names in the etymology section, since they are very long and drawn-out.
  2. The use of bold text for 'Republic of Macedonia' and 'Macedonia' in the last sentence of the first paragraph. I personally do not think they should be in bold, but different editors have removed the bold face, put it on, and removed it again. If we use the rule of synonyms to bold 'Republic of Macedonia' and 'Macedonia', we should also bold 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' as a synonym.
  3. The commonality of the term 'Macedonia'. Some users would like the last sentence to read "and the country is commonly known as Macedonia"; I proposed "and is still sometimes referred to as Macedonia", which is what is used now.
  4. The use of the term erga omnes regarding the agreement. I agree that this is just technical jargon and should be replaced with "for all uses" or, even better, dropped entirely.

If anyone thinks there is something else being contested in the lead, please raise it in this discussion. Let's come to a consensus, whichever way the consensus goes, and let's use that for the lead instead of rewriting it constantly. I have used this revision to write this. --Michail (blah) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd vote to remove the second paragraph entirely. I think a brief mention and a link to the naming dispute in the first or third paragraph is more than enough. Vpab15 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I second Vpab15's motion. With the caveat that the bare fact of its UN membership be moved to the last paragraph of the lead, just as with any other country. --Khajidha (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. I think the 1st and 2nd paragraphs should be merged, they way Fut.Perf. did it yesterday. The information is too recent and too important to remove.--Europarliament (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Vpab15 and Khajidha. The second paragraph should be removed from the lead and added to the name section maybe? Also, I agree that the long name of the country (Republic of North Macedonia) in both Macedonian and Albanian should be added to the name section as well and removed from the lead. Erga omnes, drop entirely imo. — Tom(T2ME) 09:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The name change is indeed recent, but not really that important in the grand scheme of things. It does not deserve more than a very brief mention in the first or third paragraphs in my opinion. For a comparison, the intro to Bosnia article contains one single sentence about the Bosnian War in the third paragraph: "Following the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the republic proclaimed independence in 1992, which was followed by the Bosnian War, lasting until late 1995." I hope everyone will agree that a war is more notable than a country name change. Vpab15 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Still, the name change happened just last week. Merging the first two paragraphs would work well in my opinion.--Europarliament (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Like Europarliament, I strongly disagree with the removal of the second paragraph. I also strongly disagree with Vpab15's assertion that the name change is ‘not really that important in the grand scheme of things’. If it weren't for the name dispute, the country would have been a member of NATO for ten years already, and it would most likely be a member of the EU as well.
I agree with Orser67 that the first two paragraphs shouldn't be merged. As for the rest of the lede, it should stay as it is. Libhye (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
For point 2, I agree, bold not necessary. For point 4, 'for all uses' is ok--Europarliament (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
There's consensus in the section above that "erga omnes" should be dropped from the in lead paragraph. Perhaps it could go in the body, or better yet, a footnote. Wikipedia style is to bold alternate names. However, "the former Yugoslav Republic of" is a descriptive phrase, not a name. Jonathunder (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I favor pretty much all of Michail's suggestions. I'll add that the second paragraph should remain, at least for now, because there will probably be people coming here who are unaware of the name change. I wouldn't merge the first two paragraphs because that would be an excessive amount of information in the lead paragraph. Instead, I would favor eventually merging the second and fifth paragraphs. Orser67 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

and is still sometimes called Macedonia.[edit]

from which it declared independence in September 1991 under the name "Republic of Macedonia", and is still sometimes called Macedonia. There are several issues with this sentence: 1) It starts by narrating events of 1991 ie presenting the constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" and then it jumps into highlighting the continuity of a shortened form of the name without having previously introduced the shortening. 2) It does so in such as way as to create confusion that this shortened version of the previous name is also applicable to the country's new name Republic of North Macedonia "and is still sometimes called". Macedonia is a shortened version of the Republic of Macedonia. The shortened version of the Republic of North Macedonia is North Macedonia not Macedonia. 3) still sometimes: too vague, certainly citations are needed here. If it refers to shortening Republic of North Macedonia into Macedonia, this is against Prespa Agreement and is not (sometimes) happening 4) in which language is this shortening occurs?

Hence I recommend that we use commonly shortened to 'from which it declared independence in September 1991 under the name "Republic of Macedonia", commonly shortened to Macedonia in English.

if people really want to highlight that it is still done , then 'from which it declared independence in September 1991 under the name "Republic of Macedonia", commonly shortened until today to Macedonia in English.

--Stevepeterson (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The comment that it's still sometimes called Macedonia is about as relevant as saying that the US is sometimes called "The States". People shorten longer names. It's about as predictable as the sun rising in the east and about as noteworthy. --Taivo (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Prespa Agreement[edit]

I have seen editors arguing that Wikipedia doesnt need to agree with the Prespa Agreement. I think this is wrong from any aspect, Prespa agreement represents a democratic resolution of a 27 years conflict. If wikipedia is against the resolution then it can promote ideas against the peaceful resolution eg spreading nomeclature that acts against a resolution. In wikipedia we need just a single hot head can lead to start never ending edit-wars and wasting of everyones time. I visit this topic from time to time eg every 4-5 years and feel sorry to see the same people constantly arguing for words here. Macedonians and Greeks love their countries and there is nothing wrong with that, they can divert their effort into more productive activities eg producing articles for their country in wikipedia. This Prespa agreement is a golden opportunity for all of us here to rest, become friends and move forward constructing a better future for wikipedia and our countries. Lets avoid grey areas that can keep the conflict. I propose that we study well the Prespa agreement and use it as a reference for all articles hence leaving out grey areas that will lead to enormous wastage of resources. just my two cents , a macedonian denar and a drachma -- Stevepeterson (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I completely, totally, and wholeheartedly agree with you. Reasonable, moderate people in both countries and the entire international community have welcomed and embraced the Prespa agreement, with no ifs or buts. I don't understand why here, for the sake of 'consensus', we are sometimes obliged to appease hotheads from both countries who opposed the agreement and still prefer conflict over peace. I'm sorry, but they have lost - game over. So, as mentioned above, let's please use the content of the Prespa agreement as our main reference.--Europarliament (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the U.N. The article should reflect reliable third-party sources. The Prespa Agreement is a primary source. Jonathunder (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I also agree that Wikipedia is not the UN. It just seems that prior to the Prespa agreement we had edit-wars between hotheads from the two countries, and now after the Prespa agreement, this 'consensus' approach offers plenty of space for edit wars between those who accept the peace agreement and the hotheads who still want conflict. The Prespa agreement is indeed a primary source, but "primary" in this case does not mean "bad" and should be considered as "the best possible source" in my humble opinion.--Europarliament (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I really had no idea that Wikipedia was party to the Prespa agreement; I thought is was between two states... Of course Wikipedia does not (and can not) agree or disagree with this or any other international or other agreement. Wikipedia reflects usage, full stop. --T*U (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Prior the Prespa agreement, we didn't really have edit wars. We had good stability for a decade based on consensus. Consensus is a central principle of Wikipedia and you really ought to read up on it. This discussion topic, despite Stevepeterson's touching words, can be disregarded as we have an open RfC to handle the latest developments in this name dispute saga. --Local hero talk 19:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I thought the name dispute saga was over. Oh yeah I forgot, that's irrelevant...let's keep it going on Wikipedia...--Europarliament (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it is mostly over. What we're dealing with right now is just the aftermath, mostly dealing with the terminological conundrums of a bureaucratic normative text that may well be a shining example of peace-making politically, but is still a nightmare of grammatical contortions linguistically, making adherence to it essentially impossible for anybody who wants to write decent English. We're also dealing with a number of over-eager and/or incompetent editors whose main impetus appears to be to hack away at as many instances of unadorned "Macedonia(n)" in our articles as they can get away with, like vultures, hiding them under layers of "North" and "Republic" and "of" and other additions, even in those contexts where pretty much everybody in the RfC agrees they shouldn't be. Virtually every article I've looked at in the past few days that these editors had theirs hands on was in need of partial reversion. This includes edits by at least two of the participants in this very thread here. There are also evidently some editors engaging in that same activity not out of mere incompetence and over-eagerness, but out of political spite, but that may be a different matter. Fut.Perf. 19:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
As I've pointed out before, the notion that adherence to the Prespa agreement is ‘essentially impossible for anybody who wants to write decent English’ is not in any way true. Libhye (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, that may be largely true if one follows your interpretation of the agreement, which makes wide allowance for the plain adjective "Macedonian" in a majority of contexts (all except the official names of state-associated institutions etc.) That at least narrows down the grammatical inflexibility to just those official titles. But the agreement is craftily ambiguous on that point, and as we've already seen, not everybody seems to read it that way. And to my mind, telling the world that we aren't allowed to say "the Greek and [$Whatever]ian prime ministers" is still a crime against English grammar. Fut.Perf. 09:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Fur.Perf, exactly my point. We will be dealing with such behaviours for ever unless we base our consensus on an indisputable consensus between the two countries and this is the Prespa Agreement. Whether these "over-eager and/or incompetent" editors are also in this discussion is irrelevant -- Stevepeterson (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree @Fur.Perf. Its placed some editors in a conundrum and made everything a free for all these past few weeks with other editors. One does not know if they should revert an edit by invoking the current MOSMAC or then have to deal with a counter revert where an editor might say well MOSMAC is being revised in a RfC and so forth (even though the RfC is not done and dusted) or that editors have already gone ahead with changes everywhere else. Whatever the outcome of the RfC there will be a mess to clean up on certain things. Hopefully the new RfC will give stability thereafter.Resnjari (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf., to answer your liguistic concern the PM of North Macedonia (representing the Macedonian nation as a democratically elected president) declared that he correct addressing should be "the Greek and North Macedonia's prime ministers". I don't find any linguistic problem in this and sooner or later, being the will of both Greek and Macedonians, it will be the adjective everyone will be using and be considered correct. I already see websites changing the Macedonian/North Macedonian since the note was sent by MFA yesterday. I am afraid you and some editors here (from both sides of the Greek-Macedonian border) have chosen war to peace and the right of self determination of the Macedonian people. After 27 years we have a solution and the opportunity between two nations to collaborate and move forward (and all of us here to do more constructive editing). - Stevepeterson (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, if Mr Zaev really said that (link please?), Mr Zaev may have many rights and responsibilities, but the right to slaughter English grammar for the rest of us is not among them. It's not up to you either. If you seriously think "the Greek and North Macedonia's prime ministers" is correct and grammatical English, then you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears. Fut.Perf. 14:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)