Template talk:NorthMacedonia-stub

This template is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Stub sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Stub sortingTemplate:WikiProject Stub sortingStub sorting articles

North Macedonia

This template is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia articles

Requested move 13 February 2019

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 others (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RMacedonia-stub → Template:North Macedonia-stub – New name of the state, apparently. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 10:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support movement of all former "Republic of Macedonia" pages to "North Macedonia" equivalents, as formal name change has now been implemented. Smith(talk)

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.

Requested move 4 March 2019

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: There appears to be consensus to move the pages except the ones struck for which there appears to be no consensus and therefore no prejudice against speedy renomination. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– the head article for this Balkan country has been moved from "Republic of Macedonia" to North Macedonia per an RM discussion closed on 13 Feb 2019). The closer @MSGJ noted an overwhelming consensus that now is the right time to move this article. The categories have just been renamed per near-unanimous support at WP:CFD 2019 February 16#North_Macedonia, and the stub categories are at Category:North Macedonia stubs and its subcats.
The hastily-closed discussion above at #Requested_move_13_February_2019 adopted a non-standard naming format which AFAICS is not the convention for stub templates. (@StraussInTheHouse (SITH), please can you leave this discussion time reach a consensus?)
This group proposal standardises on the camel-cased, unspaced format used by e.g. {{SouthAfrica-stub}}, {{SouthSudan-stub}}, {{NorthDakota-stub}}, {{SouthDakota-stub}}, {{NorthKorea-stub}}, {{SouthKorea-stub}}, {{IvoryCoast-stub}}, {{SierraLeone-stub}}, {{IvoryCoast-stub}}. I have tried to include all the relevant stub templates, based on this Petscan search. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck from list

Oppose camelcase. We don't need to follow this awful convention — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @MSGJ, on the contrary, WP:CONSISTENCY applies. If you would like to change the convention, please open an RFC. I am sure you can make an eloquent case for changing it, but unless and until the convention is changed the use of a non-std format for this country will be disruptive for editors and will lead to errors. Stub templates are customarily not accompanied by redirects, because consistent use of the canonical version facilitates stub-sorting using tools such as AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS The naming conventions are at WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming_conventions#Stub_templates, whose talk page would be a good location for an RFC if you want to open one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, sure, no problem, FWIW the unanimous support at other countless RMs was the reason for speedy close. SITH (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, @StraussInTheHouse (SITH), ... but you overlooked that the other discussions did not concern stub templates, which use a different format to article titles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, oops, this is probably why :P Thanks for letting me know. SITH (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support all per the recent page and category moves. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose camelcase. I also agree with MSGJ that this is an awful convention that should be eradicated. Seeing as how the naming convention page is not a guideline, but just a project page, it doesn't mean a lot. However, what is a guideline, is WP:TPN, which says that template names are easiest to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization. --Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like some people are getting the hump about this so-called camelcase. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, you should really have signed that LugNuts :P SITH (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: the convention is established by the fact that all but about a dozen of the 29,000 stub templates in Category:Stub message templates use the camelcase format.

That is a very strong WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Per Arbcom's ruling on Levels of consensus: "where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus". (See WP:LOCALCON).

If you and MSGJ want to challenge that global consensus, you need to open an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be a "global consensus" but a local project consensus which disregards a guideline that says to use a very different style. My position hasn't changed. --Gonnym (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a global consensus. It applies to all stub templates, whatever the geography or topic, and has done so for over a decade.

It's a great pity that you and MSGJ have chosen this housekeeping RM as your chosen venue to challenge that consensus, rather than taking the proper consensus building path, i.e. RFC.

If you succeed in blocking this renaming, the result will be to leave all these templates named after a title which is now deprecated, in a topic area which has been so highly divisive that Arbcom maintains a live interest in it. I hope that closer weighs the levels of consensus accordingly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications:
- WP:CFD 2019 March 6 [1]
- Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC [2]
- WP:CFD 2019 February 16 [3] (below the now-closed mass CFD of North Macedonia categories)
- WikiProject North_Macedonia [4] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, this RM really does need to wait till the RfC is closed BrownHairedGirl. The Adjective and Nationality questions here and here need to be resolved before we can realistically address a significant proportion of these stubs. Do we go ahead with "North Macedonian" or "Macedonian"? It seems logical that the stub's own title will follow the contents within (and the term within). I see stubs that are using one term or the other within the body of the stub template at the moment for similar topics, this won't be tolerated after the RfC is closed. Once the RfC is wrapped up on 17 March we will be able to address these stubs with more certainty. However, that being said, the Template:Macedonian-American-stub is one entry that absolutely needs to be removed from this list, as it is specifically referring to the ethnicity of the people from North Macedonia. Ethnicity is not really in question with regards to the country's new name. There is currently only one acceptable term for the ethnicity, "Macedonian" (ethnicity is actually also a point of debate here in the RfC, but it is a significantly one-sided discussion and not likely to shift away from the status-quo of "Macedonian"). This whole discussion needs to be paused until the next 11 days have passed. It really shouldn't be too much to ask for this at this stage. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999, thanks for spotting Template:Macedonian-American-stub. As you rightly note, it uses the demonym, whose fate is as yet undecided, so I have struck it from the list.

As to the rest of what you say, I'm sorry to say that it reminds me of your prophesy of trouble[5] at WP:CFD 2019 February 16#North_Macedonia:_Discussion_and_survey. That CFD was closed 2 days ago, and the ~650 categories were promptly renamed without any of the drama you feared.

The remaining templates all use the noun form, whose fate has been settled uncontroversially. There is no reason to delay a decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is one big difference between those categories and this list, all those categories had proper titles that clearly indicated the contents within. With stubs it is different, they have to be brief, to enable easy usage and brief typing at the bottom of an article. Thus, these titles are effectively all summaries of the short blurb of text within them. The following stubs; Template:RMacedonia-actor-stub, Template:RMacedonia-composer-stub, Template:Macedonia-footy-competition-stub, and Template:RMacedonia-university-stub, all use the adjective form within them. While these; Template:RMacedonia-writer-stub, Template:RMacedonia-musician-stub, Template:RMacedonia-politician-stub, and Template:RMacedonia-boxing-bio-stub, do not. The title of the stub really needs to reflect its contents and the former 4 I mentioned could easily be problematic if we refer to them by the name of the state "North Macedoina", particularly with regards to the Template:RMacedonia-actor-stub and Template:RMacedonia-composer-stub which relate directly to aspects of culture, something that has unequivocally been stated by RSs to be "Macedonian" in nature. I do not see what your rush is, these stubs are in an absolute mess, we should just wait till the RfC is done and then sort them out one time (at that point), their title's AND their contents. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999, I think you are finding a distinction without a difference.

Yes all stub titles are effectively summaries of the short blurb of text within them. This proposal simply reflects the fact that the noun has been changed, and neither proposes nor implies any changes of adjectival uses which occur inside their text.

There is no manner in which updating the noun usage (whether in the title or in the content) ceases to reflect the contents we are describing. It just discards the form which has been overwhelmingly agreed to be obselete.

There is no reason to have fifty-something separate discussions on exactly the same issue. And no reason to wait until the RFC is closed, because the RFC is not discussing any of the issues involved in this renaming. Quite the opposite; delay encourages editors to make undiscussed WP:BOLD moves, without the scrutiny of RM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I am trying to make clear is that these stubs generally have problems, and it would be best to not just try and resolve one singular problem that affects them without consideration for what remains. I also think 11 days is really not that unreasonable a time to ask to wait. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999, several hundred articles have been renamed to reflect the change in noun usage, even tho the adjectival issues remain unresolved. This was achieved simply by updating the nouns while leaving the adjectives untouched.

I see no reason why stub templates should be any more complicated, or should require a delay which has not been need with articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support all except Template:Macedonian-American-stub. Oculi (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving Template:North Macedonia-stub and all current RMacedonia templates for consistency. Length of the template names is not a real issue, we also have for example Template:UnitedArabEmirates-stub which is not abbreviated to UAE. Changing RMacedonia to NorthMacedonia does not change the meaning of the template at all: NorthMacedonia is exactly the same area as the former RMacedonia was. But I can imagine that we leave the two templates about film and footy competition to a separate discussion, because for those two templates we may need to discuss in more depth whether or not they also cover Greek Macedonia, which is obviously not the case with any of the other nominated templates. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, @Marcocapelle. The templates which begin "Macedonia" rather than "RMacedonia" may indeed have a different geographical scope, so I have struck them both[6] from this nomination.

This is why I favour non-speedy group discussions on name changes such as this, rather than WP:BOLD moves or a long series of individual nominations. Listing all the relevant pages allows editors to identify patterns and exceptions, as both you and @Wiz9999 have done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The noun is not at all problematic. The adjectival use is, especially when used to describe people and culture. I'm a firm supporter of plain "Macedonian" as an adjective as the Prespa Agreement gives wide allowance for it and it is still used by most reliable sources, but I don't find the this move to affect the contents of a template. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: (While grumbling...) Admittedly, this list is less problematic now without Template:Macedonian-American-stub, Template:Macedonia-footy-competition-stub, and Template:Macedonia-film-stub included the list.
Sorry if I am being difficult about this stuff, I do know that I am just an old fart at heart. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support all - A new name. New names for templates needed. If someone finds a better name for the templates in the future then thats great. For now the templates needs name change to North Macedonia. That include those struck, we have to move all or non. BabbaQ (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.