Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Additions and improvements

I'm opening this page so we can talk on possible additions and improvements on the draft, in order to avoid multiple editing of the actual page before we open the discussion. I would kindly request from all the editors to refrain from debating the actual proposals, but use this page to propose

  • possible new topics
  • additional proposals on each area for discussion
  • improvements on the lead text of each section
  • anything else related to the format of the RfC

I'll start myself suggesting a few things

  1. clarify the lead text on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/2019_RFC#Nationality_of_people, by adding the text "when nationality is required by the Wikipedia manual of style, such as in lead paragraphs of person biographies"
  2. specify further the lead text on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/2019_RFC#Government_organisations_and_other_associated_entities, by replacing the text with "State associated entities, including governmental organisations and official ranks, as well as other public entities as specified in Prespa agreement"
  3. improve the lead text on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/2019_RFC#Adjective, by rephrasing it to "other entities not specified above"

And I think that we should eventually drop the "demonym" overall or if we add it, include it together with the adjectives.

If no one disagrees, I'll make the changes. --Argean (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Argean. The RfC should make it clear whether the official ranks (for example Prime Minister) will use the nationality rule (Macedonian Prime Minister, ie the Prime Minister is ethnically Macedonian) or the adjectival rule (North Macedonian Prime Minister, ie Prime Minister of North Macedonia). I think it will be very messy if this is not specified, because some people will say but he is ethnically Macedonian, whereas others will argue but the adjective refers to his capacity as an official of North Macedonia. --Michail (blah) 00:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad that we agree, but actually I don't see any ambiguity there, that's why I put the official ranks together with other official organs, not with nationality neither with adjectives, because e.g. a Prime Minister is not just an individual but an official organ (the Head of the Executive branch of the Government), no matter what ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, height, or whatever else might be. I think this is crystal clear. --Argean (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy:, your proposal would have been valid if it was done at an earlier RfC, before the name change. Now the term Macedonia isn't the official name for that country anymore and this case here cannot be compared to Georgia's case, which is still the country's name. Adding this option for North Macedonia would go against WP:RS. It is important that the RfC is based on WP:RS or we may end with creating more problems than solving. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Disagree ...we dont have source for what is common yet...just Official ...will the media and scholars continue to just use Macedonia? Got to give the appearance of being neutral...thus far the choice is old or new ...there is/can be an alternatives (that I note has been suggested a few times in the current RfC) that is easily supported by sources as I am sure your aware of. --Moxy (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy:, actually, Wikipedia doesn't follow WP:COMMON in Macedonia's case, due to the complicated nature of the name and the semiological confusion with the other 2 Macedonias. WP:COMMON wasn't applied in the past, and that ain't changing in the future. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
We should at least attempt to TRY and follow WP:COMMONNAME where possible. It may not be possible in most cases due to the sensitive nature of words/terms being used. In the case of the country name though, it may be something we are able to pursue, in light of Prespa resolving this at an intergovernmental level. Either way, we should propose whatever seems relevant to be put to the RFC vote challenge now. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Wiz9999: there has been very thorough discussion in the past, and Wikipedia's consensus was to choose Republic of North Macedonia over Macedonia (Country) as Future Perfect has reminded us all, recently. Now this isn't even the name for the country anymore. Wikipedia can add "also known as Macedonia" in the article's lead, and that as much as we can get. "Macedonia" as title is no longer viable, and is bound to cause friction and fights among editors about the purpose of the RfC which was supposed to move the project forward with the latest developments, not bring discussion backwards 10 whole years. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Moving forward would make sure we cover all the bases. meaning - take into account the suggestions of other editors and other viable options. Best we review old talks and there terms especially when it has been suggested by multiple editors this time around. We are not limited to what can be discussed because of the old talks. Lets make sure all valid views and points are discussed so that we have a definitive answer that we can refer to in the future.- Lets be honest your preferred title will likely win out by a wide margin as the current RfC is clearly indicating. --Moxy (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident: I'm not saying that we should add "Macedonia (country)" to the RFC. All I said was "we should propose whatever seems relevant". My objection here was to your opinion that WP:MOSMAC doesn't need to consider WP:COMMONNAME. It absolutely does! It won't necessarily follow it, but it does need to be 'considered'. The basis of your statement against Moxy was that 'WP:MOSMAC does not consider WP:COMMONNAME, therefore WP:MOSMAC must not consider WP:COMMONNAME'. This logic is flawed. Of course, we COULD add Macedonia (country) to the list, and watch it get struck down with near universal opposition (based on the RM discussion happening over at Republic of Macedonia right now), but this is probably pointless. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Apparently you misunderstood me. Let me clarify things: When I said "Wikipedia doesn't follow WP:COMMON in Macedonia's case, I mean the decission for the Macedonia article's title skipped WP:COMMON with a consensus for obvious reasons concerning semiological confusion and other complications. This doesnt mean that WP:COMMON isn't the rule that has to be followed for most occasions, just what I am saying, there was an exception to this for the country's article name, for valid reasons, which, 10 years later, have not ceased. The current RfC, respects the consensus, but also, is asking editors and the community overall, to decide on which name to pick as part of the article title's update from a non-valid, non-official and non-common name (Republic of Macedonia) to a valid non-common, but official name (Republic of North Macedonia). Simple as that.
I understand some people may feel WP:COMMON name should be applied whenever possible, but having past options which were denied already, added into the RfC, risks re-igniting these painful debates of the past. Doing so, will cause a big uproar among the community, disruption and strong disagreements with editors and sorry to say it, I do not want even to be here if this happens. Don't count on my support for inclusion of already-refused terms in the new RfC about the country's article name. The RfC's purpose this time is simply to ask editors which of the 2 new valid names for that country is preferred. Lets not have the RfC's purpose and meaning be derailed. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I accept this, and don't disagree with your sentiment. Thanks for clarifying. 👍 - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't participant of the previous RfC, and I am very thankful for that. Many editors who participated in the previous RfC, told me how painful it was. I can't imagine but I believe them. The only reason I am participating in the new RfC is because it is expected to be less controversial and more smooth this time around. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In the Nationality section, added a much-needed clarification that it does not refer to a particular people of the country, but all people irrespective of ethnicity: [1] While this is already OBVIOUS to most of us, I can see editors, unfamiliar with the Balkan realities, confusing things. Better safe than sorry. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident: I need to think about that for a while. Initially your addition looks good, because it will help e.g. Greek speakers, since nationality and ethnicity translate to the same word in Greek, but on the other hand don't you think that linking to the ethnic groups is like juxtaposing the 2 terms and predisposing the answer? --Argean (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Argean:. the wikilink is meant to clarify that the term is to be used to refer both the ethnic Macedonians and ethnic Albanians. If there are potential issues with this, then lets have it removed. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident: I think it's self-explanatory. There are also ethnic Turks, ethnic Bosniaks, ethnic Roma, but does it make any difference to use a wikilink to explain it further? Nationality and ethnicity can be used interchangeably in some countries irrespectively of the ethnic groups that live there, and there are other countries like France, where the definition of nationality/citizenship actually disregards the background ethnicity. I think that is enough to state that nationality does not mean ethnicity, when used in the context required by wikipedia articles. --Argean (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm pinging everyone that participated in the discussion here to help formulating the final draft. Let's give ourselves a deadline of a couple of days and then make any proposed changes to the draft, that are unopposed. Since we don't all speak English as a native language, let's try to keep our suggestions short and straightforward. And please no debating, we can do that when the RfC is open. @Future Perfect at Sunrise, Marianian, Philly boy92, Kahastok, Resnjari, Danski454, Kudzu1, SilentResident, FlavrSavr, Wiz9999, Antondimak, Macedonicus, Matthew hk, Sashko1999, ThorstenNY, and Moxy. --Argean (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I was going to suggest several tweaks here and there for choices 1–8, but on second and third thought, I think those are as good as they’re gonna get. Good job! But should we perhaps not make it harder on ourselves than necessary and simply drop #9 for now? If we were to address these questions now, I think they would have to be broken down into several choices. E.g., Northern Macedonia currently redirects to Republic of Macedonia. Surely, one viable option would be to keep it redirecting to the country article, i.e., North Macedonia. Whether or not Southern Macedonia should change (it currently redirects to Macedonia (Greece), which seems fine to me) probably should be a separate question. —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree on dropping 9. --Argean (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, I think it is relevant to sort this out now rather than later. Though I do admit the section carries less weight and significance than the other 8, but it should still be decided upon nevertheless. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Philly boy92: do we need to add 3C? I think that we should debate on the short form that we propose for the nationality (read my point 1 above). The official term for nationality is not debatable and not useful as a short form. --Argean (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Argean I saw that in the other discussion and I put it on there because I think someone suggested it. I might be wrong. --Michail (blah) 09:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Philly boy92 You are right it has been suggested, but I can't see it as practical solution for general use. Maybe we could add the text in the lead "to be used as a short term instead of the official term "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia" that has been designated by Prespa agreement. --Argean (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I question if there would be serious controversy if the article title was “North Macedonia”. “Republic of North Macedonia” is the official name, but I personally feel that “North Macedonia” is sufficient enough. BTW, “South Macedonia” could redirect to the Greek region, which stems from the simple directional logic thing. --Marianian(talk) 01:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Marianian: Let's not debate on the actual proposals. It has been suggested a couple of times on Talk:Republic of Macedonia to change the title to "Republic of North Macedonia", so I guess the proposal should be included. Well, South Macedonia already redirects to Macedonia (Greece), and oh boy by reading the news in Greece in the last few days, I can predict that many Greeks will not be very happy if they find that out. --Argean (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that article you linked earlier about what happened to the journalist. Yeesh! Some scary stuff right there. Let's hope Prespa starts becoming a source for cooler heads on the dispute in both states. No one should be penalised for mere terminology. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Argean: You’re right, we probably shouldn’t have 3C, for two reasons: other than legal texts and possibly North Macedonian passports, virtually nobody will ever write something like John Doe, a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia football player …. So why should WP use this awkward phrase? We’re all about common usage, not official legalese. And, more importantly, this long phrase is completely unworkable. Where, other than in a article on the Prespa Agreement or a formal discussion of North Macedonian citizenship, would we ever use it? —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed John Doe, a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia football player … was very very awkward. I would stick with what Future Perfect At Sunrise believes: that the "North Macedonian" is natural term, and sufficient enough so that it can be used to refers to as coming from that country. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, and while I have appreciated the very civil discussion of this issue, I don't find any of the arguments I've seen over the use of "North Macedonian" to describe the nationality of North Macedonia (a country, I hasten to add, that is ethnically more than one-third non-Macedonian, and which is only changing its name because of the political group representing the quarter of the population that is Albanian siding with government on the matter) to be altogether compelling. Despite whatever language is actually in the Prespes Agreement, Wikipedia has always leaned heavily on reliable secondary sources, and already, major English-language news organizations and commentators in the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, and Serbia have begun to use the adjectival form.
That being said, if we don't have consensus on this particular issue, I'd rather table it and revisit in six months to a year than let it scupper this entire update of the policy. That would give us time to evaluate common usage, although I don't expect the results to be very surprising. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident and Kudzu1: As I said before please do NOT debate on the actual proposals in this page. Save your arguments for the actual RfC. Please stay on topic, which is how to improve the format and the content of the RfC. If we keep arguing on the proposals every time we try to draft an RfC, I doubt if we'll ever manage to actually do so. --Argean (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't invent it's own terms, it has to use common terms used by WP:RS. --Michail (blah) 11:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel there is justification for using a neutral description as a 'term' here, it is better to be NPOV I think. Besides, it is not as if Macedonicus has 'invented' the word "Macedonian" or "North Macedonia", he is just combining these two terms with bracketing. On that note I will also re-iterate the similar proposal I made on WT:MOSMAC (here) that Macedonian (North) be an option for 'Nationality of people', 'Government organisations and other associated entities', 'Adjective', and 'Demonym' (if this section ever returns). The reason why I propose this is because I can see this shorter 'term' (with the qualifier in brackets) gain wider usage that the one proposed for nationality previously by Macedonicus, due to its brevity. It is also just as neutral as the afore-mentioned suggestion. As I said in my earlier edit, feel free to disagree, or call my proposal ludicrous. (Phew... it is getting hard to keep current with all these ongoing talk pages at the moment, I am starting to get them mixed up in my head) - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Macedonicus: I agree with adding more options, if they are well justified. Wiz9999 is right, we need to add something neutral, that might be a technical term, and maybe not used in the media, but after all we are looking for achieving WP:CONSENSUS. By the way the media are a mess right now, occasionally using "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" in the same article (but my general sense is that they try to separate the terms depending on context - I'm at work right now, but I'll try to do a search later at night). I think that we don't have the required number of sources to justify what is WP:COMMONNAME right now, and by the way that is not what we have been doing with WP:MOSMAC so far, but rather finding the common ground to reduce the effects of the dispute. And as I've said before the Prespa agreement hasn't eliminated all sides of the dispute. --Argean (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
"And as I've said before the Prespa agreement hasn't eliminated all sides of the dispute." - This is exactly what I keep trying to tell people here and on the RM discussion. Prespa hasn't resolved everything. It helps, and goes a long way to moving the dispute forward, but it has not eliminated it yet. There will still be a need for WP:MOSMAC going forward, something that many editors at Talk:Republic of Macedonia don't seem to realise in thier comments. With regards to what you say about about common ground, that is exactly what I am trying to say in my discussion below about including "Macedonia (North Macedonia)"/"Macedonia (North)" in the RfC list, potentially in violation of WP:SYNTH - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it would be useful to make a list of usage of these terms in international media to get an approximate idea of how widely are they used? This will help users make an informed choice. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Philly boy92 I am just trying to add more options here, besides media and some Wikipedians are 'inventing' the adjective North Macedonian already whereas it is not used at all by the official government bodies from both parties (GR and MK) and it is against the agreement. I just feel like it should be an option. There are lots of cases where Wikipedia 'invents' terms for better understanding and neutrality.Macedonicus (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Macedonicus - I did not invent 'North Macedonian', it is being used by reliable sources [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Who is using 'Macedonian (North Macedonia)'? This is WP:OR. Wikipedia's role is not to mediate in the dispute, its role is to use what is being used. :) --Michail (blah) 12:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Macedonicus, "North Macedonian" at this moment is just as 'invented' as "Macedonian (North)", "Macedonian (North Macedonia)", or "of North Macedonia". None of these four actually existed in any lexicon as of the end of 2018/beginning 2019. It is too early to say "North Macedonian" is the WP:COMMONNAME - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it's the common name, I'm saying that is is being used as well. By definition it is not invented, because as you can see I have given you a wide range of different news sources and political organisations that use North Macedonian as an adjective. It seems from the sources that in reference to the state North Macedonian is more common an adjective than of North Macedonia, and it also seems from the same sources that Macedonian is not being used to describe the state (for example they say North Macedonian parliament, not Macedonian parliament). If you can find me some sources that use "Macedonian (North)" or "Macedonian (North Macedonia)" I will concede that those are used too. But my search has found not a single use of this. --Michail (blah) 12:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
"...is more common an adjective than..." - And thus you are arguing WP:COMMONNAME. But let us stop this pointless bickering about it. It really isn't up to you and me. It will be up to the editors who vote in the RFC. I suggest we should have all five qualifiers "Macedonian", "North Macedonian", "of North Macedonia", "Macedonian (North)", and "Macedonian (North Macedonia)" be listed on all three of the current discussion points: 'Nationality of people', 'Government organisations and other associated entities', and 'Adjective'. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article".

— WP:SYNTH

"Do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.".

— WP:TITLECHANGES
--Michail (blah) 12:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm guessing nobody minds the media research. OK, I'll start when I have more time. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I have my dissertation due at 23:59 tonight so can't invest the time. I've provided reliable sources that use North Macedonian, and that is enough I think to be able to count North Macedonian as a reasonable alternative to of North Macedonia as an adjectival reference. The problem with searching google for "macedonian" and "north Macedonian" is that any search for Macedonian will also bring up searches for North Macedonian because of its parameters. --Michail (blah) 12:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Good luck! --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92: Good luck! --Argean (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, you raise a fair point about WP:SYNTH. I can't really argue against it. WP:TITLECHANGES on the other hand is about titles specifically, these terms are not titles themselves, but language usage through the bodies of wikipedia articles, so it does not technically apply but I see your point about it nonetheless.
Regardless, if the two quoted guidelines are true Philly_boy92 then why does "Macedonia (region)" exist? Surely the correct name for the article is indeed "Macedonia" and the disambiguation page should be "Macedonia (disambiguation)". Since "Macedonia (region)" is in just as much violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:TITLECHANGES as "Macedonia (North Macedonia)" is ....
(Good luck on your dissertation by the way, focus on that instead of this, I will wait till your reply is ready.) - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Please don't forget the difference between disambiguation qualifiers in page titles and actual use in text. The "(region)" in "Macedonia (region)" is a tag added to the page title for purely technical reasons, and is never meant to be actually displayed in running text. Such technical disambiguators are of course not barred by the rule not to "invent our own names". But the "adjectival" references being thrown around in this discussion are just that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't change the fact that the 'correct' location for the geographical article is indeed "Macedonia", since Macedonia is a geographical term that is larger than the state of "Republic of Macedonia" (I don't think many would argue that Thessaloniki, Greece is not in "Macedoina" the geographical region), and that the term/title "Macedonia (region)" is invented, here, for the sole use in wikipedia. Also, the correct location for the disambiguation should still be "Macedonia (disambiguation)", as this is a common convention here on wikipedia (to list disambiguation pages like this), and disambiguation pages are themselves effectively an entirely wikipedia based construct, making this 'invented term' reasonable. Now I understand why the current location of both of these pages is where they are now. It was a COMPROMISE. A compromise made many years ago, and made to calm the nerves of editors with the differing perspectives on the Macedonia dispute. However, my point is that, in light of the violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:TITLECHANGES that "Macedonia (region)" represents, should we consider the term "Macedonia (North Macedonia)" or "Macedonia (North)" and disregard the violation? Or should we not consider these two terms and move "Macedonia (region)" to "Macedonia", where it belongs, because to me it is one option or the other.
I will quote this again from WP:TITLECHANGES: "Do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising" - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) No, what is or isn't the "correct" location for a page has nothing to do with which entity is "larger" than the other. The criterion for whether a dab page is at the simple main title ("Macedonia") or suffixed with "(disambiguation)" is whether one of the articles in question is the "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC", i.e. whether it is significantly more prominent in terms of reader interest than all the others together. The "region" article was clearly determined to be very far from such a "primary" status. The country article might have qualified for "primary" status, which is why it was a serious contender for the simple "Macedonia" page title; it was a judgment call not to put it there in the end. Contrary to what you say, all the present arrangements were very clearly based on a faithful application of standard naming policies at the time, and there is no "violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:TITLECHANGES" in a page title like "Macedonia (region)" in the slightest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  • A question. Is the "other" in the "What adjective should other entities from North Macedonia use? This is for article titles, references in articles and the infobox on the main article referring to unofficial/non-governmental entities, which are not bound by the Prespa Treaty and can be referred to anyway they like? Shouldn't a clarification such as "unofficial/non-governmental" be added next to the term "other" (i.e.: What adjective should other (e.g. non-governmental, unofficial) entities from North Macedonia use? This is for article titles, references in articles and the infobox on the main article? It may be obvious for Prespa Agreement readers, but not so obvious for others :S -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident: Yes, I already suggested that above (see my point 3, on the top of the page): "other entities not specified above". Actually, I haven't seen anyone disagreeing with my proposals, so I'll go on adding them and we can discuss further if needed. --Argean (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. We could specify it even further adding the (e.g. non-governmental, unofficial), if we want to be more specific, but I believe it looks fine now. -- Argean (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

(I am Greek, so my proposals might be biased to some degree)

  • Since this is an RfC that asks the question of how we should rename the main article, I propose to take a more neutral stance throughout the RfC on how we refer to the country on it to avoid accusations of subliminal suggestions. My proposal (for this RfC document and only this) is to refer to the country with both the official and the common name separated by a forward slash, like "Republic of North Macedonia/North Macedonia". For example, it should read: "What should the main article on Republic of North Macedonia/North Macedonia be called?"
  • On the "Disambiguation" section we should clearly state the whole order for Macedonia, not just the first spot.
  • On the "Nationality of people" option we should change the explanation to read "Wikipedia should call the people from Republic of North Macedonia/North Macedonia as North Macedonian(s).". We are not defining what their nationality is, but rather what "form" we are going to use. Already rephrased.
  • One subject the the Prespa agreement does not cover but might arise here, is the adjective for goods produced on either the Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia (Greece). I just raise the issue to make people aware that this is something we might have to discuss in the future.

We should also define a deadline for proposals on the draft itself. Despotak (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Despotak and thanks for the suggestions (don't worry, I don't think that most of us are completely neutral).
  • Actually I think that the RfC already takes into account the current RM at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, that will end up apparently with moving the article to North Macedonia. Still we need to reaffirm that with the RfC (well I'm not sure about this one, but if anyone knows better please correct me).
  • I don't think that anyone has raised the issue of changing the whole order at Macedonia, but if there is such proposal we can discuss it.
  • Good point, the text read quite awkwardly, so I already rephrased it.
  • We can still add more questions at section 9, but I feel that wikipedia cannot really do anything to decide on the names of trademarked products, although I'm aware it has been part of the agreement (but it's rather an issue that the 2 governments will handle alone).
Yes, we probably have to set a deadline for drafting the RfC, or we can go on debating for ages. Maybe this Friday the 15th, when probably we'll get an official confirmation that the rename of the country has taken place (and the RM will apparently follow suit) sounds good? --Argean (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I second the 15th of February as the deadline. As for the trademarks, I totally agree that there is nothing we can do right now. Maybe the only thing we can do is to add a clause that any further naming disputes will be examined in proper time and that the new WP:MOSMAC can be amended. Despotak (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Here are my proposals:
About 2, whether exlpanatory text is added shouldn't be tied to the position of the article on the list, as there isn't really any correlation. Maybe we should also clarify what the explanatory text will be, and for how long it will remain there.
About 4, I propose, where possible (probably not in the case of the MP for example), directly translating the original in Macedonian. So if it is "Severnomakedonski X", we say "North Macedonian X", and when it is "X na Severna Makedoniya", we say "X of North Macedonia".
About 5, I can't think of any case where an adjective wouldn't fall in the other categories. In the infobox for example, aren't we referring to the state, so wouldn't it be under 4?
About 6, even though it's an important issue and there seems to be consensus, I support dropping it completely from there, and passing it seperately. It is a entirely different issue. Matters relating to the culture and the language shouldn't be related to the state. This is also not affected by the Prespa agreement, even though it's a good time to review it. Personally I only backed the common proposal just because what we are now discussing has nothing to do with ethnicity, language, or culture.
About 8, I propose adding a more fluid option. It really depends on the context what name is used (and whether a clarification is added). We are correctly not addressing the period before 1991, because there it gets so complicated we can't limit editors, and it depends from article to article, and the current policy is causing problems (Georgi Pulevski's article being a highlight, where his own words are mistranslated to fit with the policy). Antondimak (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The translation of North Macedonian in Macedonian is Severnomakedonski, not Severno Makedonski. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I fixed it. Thank you. Antondimak (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Antondimak:
On 2: there have been 2 different explanatory texts proposed here: North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia, a country in Southeast Europe and Republic of Macedonia, now Republic of North Macedonia, a country in Southeast Europe. We could add either or both in the proposal (personally I don't mind which one)
On 4: I can't really understand how this changes things
On 5 and 6: The adjectives will become our worst nightmare I'm afraid... Well the mention of the infobox comes from an earlier proposal of mine that included all adjectival and demonymic references and obviously does not refer to the state, but to the people. We can remove that part, if it is too ambiguous, but on the other hand the demonym has been debated quite a few times already (although we haven't been able to agree on the definition). About other adjectives, it's true that the previous discussion on disambiguation has helped a lot especially with article titles, but after running a quick search in wikipedia I did locate a few issues that could become ambiguous: e.g. how would you call now a "Macedonian" newspaper, or a "Macedonian" bank, or even these random "entities" like the Macedonian mafia? To go even further, I'm now realizing that not only we shouldn't drop 6, but maybe to specify it even more. So, I guess Macedonian hip-hop is still part of the culture, isn't it? And I guess that the same applies to Macedonian cuisine, or to Macedonian songs and Macedonian films? Or not?
On 8: honestly I don't like fluidity, because it leaves the door wide open to potentional revisionism. By the way, I just noticed that we are currently covering only the name of the state there. Are we sure that this is enough? --Argean (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Argean:
On 4, it would mean that if the organisation we are mentioning itself mentions the country in its name, we don't need to change anything. For example, we have the "Macedonian Radio Televison", as FlavrSavr put it. If it is remaned, in Macedonian, to "North Macedonian Radio Televison", that's how we'll call it in English. If it is renamed to "Radio Televison of North Macedonia", we will do the same.
On 5 and 6, it seems simpler to me. When se say "Macedonian bank", we mean a bank in related to North Macedonia as a country, not to the ethnic group. So it would be under 4, and it would be a "North Macedonian bank". "Macedonian couisine" assuming we don't include all groups of the country and we mean the couisine of the Macedonian Slavs, should be considered part of culture, and so unrelated to the current dicussion.
On 8, in this case, fluidity, I believe, is necessary. When you have an article about the 19th century and the IMRO, you have persons who, when they sued the word "Macedonia", they occasionally meant the region in general or the Slavic region, with the Slavs sometimes thought of as Bulgarians or as an independent ethnic group, or something in between. It often is the case that even the same person alternates between all that, and that's only one side, not including the Greeks. So I think we should give the editors the means to choose what word to use depending on the context, because it's impossible to generalise.
We are only talking about the state. My biggest proposal is essentially creating two sepatate discussions, one for the state and one for the culture, because they are unrelated. What changed now with the deal affects only the state, but it is a good time to revisit the culture question. Antondimak (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Antondimak:
Thanks for clarifying 4. Yes it makes sense, I agree. By isn't it the only way that makes sense? I mean we can not translate "Severnomakedonska radio televizija" to "Radio Television of North Macedonia", can we? If we think that is ambiguous we could add a text like "The names of such entities shall be consistent to the translation of the new name from Macedonian to English".
No, I don't agree that this is the case. It is not stipulated by the agreement for non-state entities to be referred as "of North Macedonia"/"North Macedonian". It can become a complete mess if we not clarify it, and end up having sentences like "a Macedonian essay published in a North Macedonian newspaper by a (North) Macedonian author on Macedonian folk music". We can't ignore the fact that the use of the term "Macedonian" will be challenged in many pages and in various contexts, so we need to address it beforehand.
On the contrary the history is not currently being questioned. I don't see the reason for examining again the historic use of the terms, especially before the 1991 period, as you already mentioned before We are correctly not addressing the period before 1991.
Oh please, it's definitely not the time to open any culture question, since it's also not an issue mentioned in the agreement, and I don't see any need to do that especially at a time that even the disputes on terminology have not been addressed. --Argean (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Argean:
Yes something like that.
Alright I agree then.
Because the previous resolution has been used for articles before 1991. I think we should make it clear that those instances aren't binded by any of this.
Isn't 6 ("Language, ethnicity, culture etc") doing exactly that? I'm saying the same thing. It isn't mentioned in the agreement, so why is it there? If we want to discuss it it should be separate. Anyway if it ends up remaining there, my proposal is to keep everything as is, but allow for the use of the terms "Slavic Macedonia" or "Macedonias (Slavs)" in contexts where other kinds of "Macedonian" are being used too to make easier distinctions ("Slavic Macedonians X, whereas Greek Macedonians Y", instead of "ethnic Macedonians X, whereas Greek Macedonians Y").

New proposal for the 'Government organisations and other associated entities'

I think we should add a new option in this section and that is North Macedonia's. This seems to me as an elegant compromise that will avoid both adjectival uses ('Macedonian and North Macedonian') and still be in line with the spirit of the Prespa Agreement, while not insisting on the formal 'of North Macedonia'. And it actually makes sense to talk about North Macedonia's Government, North Macedonia's Prime Minister, etc. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that won't work in all syntactic contexts:
*Skopje and other North Macedonia's cities
*Some North Macedonia's agencies
*No North Macedonia's laws were broken
*Two North Macedonia's ministers disagreed
*The Greek and North Macedonia's prime ministers met
... and so on. Grammatically, a pre-nominal genitive can only accompany a definite noun phrase that has no other article, determiner or numeral, and it cannot be coordinated with other equivalent modifiers. That narrows down the range of possible use quite dramatically, so if you were thinking of adding that as a new option to the exclusion of the others, I don't think that will work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking of adding it as an entirely new option, but maybe it will be better as an addition to the first option, as a simpler version of the somewhat cumbersome 'of North Macedonia' that can be used when referring to singular entities, such as North Macedonia's government, North Macedonia's prime minister, but Skopje and other cities in/of North Macedonia, etc.--FlavrSavr (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I like this proposal and I endorse it. Macedonicus, the North Macedonia's Wikipedian. Sounds about right :) Macedonicus (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia(n) is not a governmental entity or a governmental position. Thankfully! :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
And "the North Macedonia's Wikipedian" isn't grammatical English, in case this wasn't meant ironically. Unless you are the only Wikipedian belonging to an entity called "the North Macedonia". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The RfC isn't meant to narrow our grammatical and syntax options :( The RfC is meant to decide on which terms can be used to describe/refer to the country and its associations. Now, I am not too excited about these "North Macedonia's" and "North Macedonian" and "of North Macedonia" dilemmas. I would like to be able to use any of these options depending the occassion. Can't we keep things simpler? I am sure things don't have to be THAT complicated. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
IMHO, the RfC should both reflect the need for grammatical flexibility and the need for a framework to prevent or minimize countless edit wars that might happen in the future, given the sensitivity of the subject. My proposal was in that direction. I'm not insisting on it, just acting in good faith. --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
If you mean to craft the RfC with the goal of arriving at naming conventions that say that editors shouldn’t use ungrammatical language in order to satisfy any (perceived) Prespa precedent, than I’m all for it. —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, @SilentResident: keep things simple(r.) I think the only options presented should be whether to prefer North Macedonia(n) or Macedonia(n), depending on context. It seems pretty clear that the grammatical constraints were only included in Prespa to provide political cover and, more relevant to us, that they will have little, if any, bearing on common usage. Does anyone really think major English news organizations (which probably are our major RS) will ever widely use constructs like “of North Macedonia” over “North Macedonian”, if this would go against the conventions they would ordinarily follow? —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone really think major English news organizations (which probably are our major RS) will ever widely use constructs like “of North Macedonia” over “North Macedonian”, if this would go against the conventions they would ordinarily follow? I do. First of all, major international organizations, which are also relevant in determining a name (and potentially its usage in media) are unlikely to use names not presribed by the Prespa Agreement. Secondly, I think that most media will not use a term that it's more convenient for them when the referred subjects explicitely consider the 'convenient term' in odds with their perceived identity or to the term that they have agreed on. Thirdly, according to WP:NAMECHANGES, extra weight should be given to RS and they are, despite the name change, using "Macedonian" over "North Macedonian" (the second only used by handful of outlets so far). --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
FlavrSavr I don't understand what you mean. This seems to me a little bit POV-oriented (no offence intended). What makes you think that international organisations and the media will use an inconvenient term ("of North Macedonia") over a convenient term ("North Macedonian")? Do you have any reliable sources that indicate "of North Macedonia" being more popular than the more convenient "North Macedonian"? This is a genuine question, because I have not seen this. If international organisation and the media used what international agreements between two sovereign states use, then no one would refer to the North Macedonia as 'Republic of Macedonia' between 1992 and 2019 because the Interim Accord signed between Greece and North Macedonia specified the country's interim name as 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'. The media certainly did not consider the feelings of 2.4 million people to self-identify as Macedonians (Greeks) and start calling 1.4 million of Macedonians (ethnic group) "Slav Macedonians" or some other term Greeks would not find offensive, so I am not entirely convinced that the international media is going to consider whether Macedonians think the adjectival reference North Macedonian is offensive. I also did not see very many people in the previous RfC arguing that bilateral agreements are binding for Wikipedia over what is commonly used and that Wikipedia should be using the Interim Accord as its basis to remain neutral. Saying that international organisations and the media will prefer "of North Macedonia" over "North Macedonian" is highly speculative and WP:OR, especially given that media and international organisations have already began to use "North Macedonian" (see sources in my earlier post for examples by reliable news sources). Also, Wikipedia is not here to make sure that we don't offend Macedonians, like Wikipedia was not there to make sure we do not offend Greeks in the previous RfC. Wikipedia is purely here to ascertain what is commonly used in English so that we may proceed accordingly; all evidence presented so far in this discussion is that "North Macedonian" is entering English as the more popular alternative to the adjectival reference "of North Macedonia". --Michail (blah) 17:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Philly boy92 Those very same international organizations that used 'the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' will now use the UN-sanctioned Prespa Agreement that specifically refers to the nationality as 'Macedonian / Citizen of North Macedonia' and the adjectival use as 'of North Macedonia'. It is not clear whether both terms will be used, however 'North Macedonian' will not be used in any form, not anytime soon. This is because every time this adjectival use appears in an international organization report or document, the government of the future North Macedonia will refer to the Prespa Agreement, much like Greece objected to any use of 'Republic of Macedonia' in the 1991 - 2019 period. You are right that there is no evidence, so far, that this will be the case, so it might appear that I'm doing an WP:OR, but that's only because the agreement isn't still fully in force, officially. International organizations work in a much more predictable fashion than media: they are bound to follow international agreements. As far as international media are concerned, the usage of 'North Macedonian' is so far dwarfed by the usage of 'Macedonian' to refer both to the government and the nationality, as my prospective media research will show. So, for now, it's only an assumption that 'North Macedonian' will become more common than 'Macedonian', for example. And assumption is the mother of all... crystal balls. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Of North Macedonia and North Macedonian is practicaly the same, but the second term is more popular and more practice to be used, because and the media prefer to use this term. My propose is and both terms to be used here. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
And since independence up till now, simply "Macedonian" is most popular. We can't know what will be most commonly used but we can certainly revisit the issue if and when it changes. There seem to be a lot of ifs right now and we shouldn't try to be predictors. --Local hero talk 17:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
A lot of comments have been based on WP:CRYSTAL. I agree with @Local hero. A question. In the draft of the RfC, on option 3C: "Macedonian(s)/Citizen(s) of the Republic of North Macedonia". Is it indicating either that Macedonian(s) and or Citizen(s) of the Republic of North Macedonia can be used separately depending on the context or is it inferring that Macedonian(s)/Citizen(s) of the Republic of North Macedonia be used as one in a article etc?Resnjari (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  1. This is in reference to the adjectival form of the name North Macedonia, where "North Macedonian" seems to be more common than "of North Macedonia".
  2. Wikipedia is not bound to follow the Prespa agreement, like it did not follow the Interim Accord when Greece objected to Macedonia calling itself Macedonia. Wikipedia called it Macedonia no matter how much Greece protested. I fail to see how Macedonia protesting the adjectival use of "North Macedonian" will force The Guardian, Bloomberg, and Al Jazeera to stop using it. Now there's a crystal ball for ya.
  3. The fact that "North Macedonian" is a more popular adjectival form than "of North Macedonia" and should therefore be allowed as a possible alternative on Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If you want to ignore the sources using it, by all means ignore them. We are not talking about what was used before the agreement. We are talking about what is being used after the constitutional amendments. --Michail (blah) 21:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not here to debate WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS via WP:CRYSTAL semantics. @Local Hero made succinct points. Obviously "North Macedonian" will be used for certain things regarding the state itself. My question was in relation to the draft RfC on nationality. I want some clarity so i know what to vote for in section 3. For me this is the most relevant part.Resnjari (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment The discussion on adjectives seems to have completely derailed and I think it's impossible for most of us to follow it. Of course everyone is entitled to the right to debate and provide arguments to support their opinion, but I think this is not the place to do it. Anyway, to get to the point, we currently have 2 adjectives to select from (regardless if we are talking about the short form of the nationality, or for the adjectival references to various things, including the demonyms): "Macedonian(s)" and "North Macedonian(s)". I can see many people arguing with passion that A or B is completely wrong and should not even be considered as an option. So instead of having only these 2 all-or-nothing options, that can lead to endless confrontations, does anyone agree that we have to consider the option of having a third alternative, that can be used as a consensus solution? I mean we don't even need to name a specific term, but leave the option to have an alternative if the discussion leads to a deadlock? --Argean (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Voting format

Just a technical thing about the structure of the polling sections: in the current draft, every individual proposal (currently 18 in number) has a separate "support" and "oppose" section. Is this really efficient? It means that every participant will have to enter up to 18 separate !vote statements, many of which will be redundant (if I support proposal 1.1, I'll probably be opposing the competing proposal 1.2, and so on).

Would it be okay if we condensed the polling sections to one per topic, and ask people to give statements of the form "Option A, Option B" etc. rather than just support or oppose? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with that, at least for 1-8. Section 9 should probably be left as is. Danski454 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we should change it to Option A, Option B, etc. to improve clarity and make it easier for the users to vote. --Argean (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
We should probably follow the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting and especial the section about separating vote from discussion. I also support the notion for 1 vote per mutually exclusive/competing section. There is no reason to vote against the "Republic of North Macedonia" if I voted for "North Macedonia" Despotak (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I have created a Survey section for 1-8. Danski454 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

How to do formal request to rename article quickly, then deal with derivative terms?

It’s official: the North Macedonian government website now gives Република Северна Македонија in its header. Since it appears obvious that nobody quite knows how the nationality and other derived terms will shake out in common usage, how about we rename the country article now and deal with the rest with a careful RfC process? The RM on the country’s talk page should have made it clear that North Macedonia really isn’t controversial. Keep in mind that Republic of Macedonia is now neither the common nor official name. So keeping the article name thus for several more weeks really can’t be a reasonable option. How can we make this happen? —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Perhaps waiting for few more days for or the UN formalities to enter in force until 15 February. However the RfC should take longer than 15 February as the nationality and other derived terms are likely to be a point of debate. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The main article renaming is being treated by its own regular RM process already anyway, which will be closed any time between now and in three or four days' time, I suppose. Given that RM looks pretty unanimous so far, we could just call it a day and omit the main point from the RfC here. Or were there voices that strongly wanted an alternative (like a move to full Republic of North Macedonia, currently option 1.B) to get its full airing for another 30 days? Over at Talk:Republic of Macedonia I haven't seen a lot of such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The main article renaming is being treated by its own regular RM process already anyway. Splendid! Should we then simply eliminate Question 1? —ThorstenNY (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Or we need to reaffirm it? --Argean (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
As long as it’s clear that this does not preclude renaming the country page this Friday (that’s when the renaming request officially closes, right?), I think that’s a good idea, just so we have all naming conventions together for future reference. —ThorstenNY (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that it has been made clear that the RM can go on without problems and close on Friday with a move to North Macedonia as expected. I'm simply wondering if we need to reaffirm in an official guideline (updated WP:MOSMAC) that the title of the page shall remain North Macedonia. --Argean (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating my question, but was there anybody here who seriously wanted the main article to be moved to the full Republic of North Macedonia? If not, and the only possible contender is now Macedonia (country) as proposed by Moxy, which I think would be a viable candidate in theory but has a vanishingly small likelihood of gaining consensus, there's really nothing more to debate about this point, is there? How about: We consolidate all the sections that are practically non-contentious (main article title, language, ethnicity, present-day references) into a single "Housekeeping" section, where we'll only ask for a formal show of "support" for reaffirmation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is true that the debate about the renaming of the main article was done already and it will be redundant to ask it again. I'm in favor of Fut.Perf.'s proposal to consolidate those articles and only open then up if valid arguments are raised during the RfC period. I'm also in favor of the question for "formal show of "support" for reaffirmation" on those matters. --Despotak (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Support for merging the sections 1, 6, 7 into a single housekeeping section. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Deadline for finalizing the draft

As already discussed above, we probably need a deadline to finalize the draft. The agreement has officially entered into force today [12] and the RM will obviously be closed on Friday with a move to North Macedonia. I expect that there will be a potential chaos in the next few days, with edit wars flaring up all over the place. I think we should finalize the RfC by Friday 15 and make sure that we put it forward the soonest possible. There are still many proposals that are being discussed (e.g. addition of other alternatives options especially under sections 3 and 5, but also under sections 2, 4, 8 and 9), so we need to make progress quickly. The fact that many editors are still debating the content of the proposals is not really helpful either. I'll try later to summarize the proposals that are still open. Does anyone else has an alternative deadline to propose? --Argean (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the German Wikipedia just renamed the article to de:Nordmazedonien, and it went off without a hitch. If there were significant opposition to this (which might result in edit wars), we should see it on the German site. There are a lot of German-speaking Greeks and (North) Macedonians. I have seen no indication that North Macedonia will be controversial. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't contest the move to North Macedonia or Republic of North Macedonia, but decouple the nationality and other derived terms. That part of the RfC should remain longer than 15 February (actually it says XX March which I think is a reasonable date)--FlavrSavr (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
We are talking about the deadline for the draft, so people can start comment and vote on the actual matter. The RfC will remain active until another deadline (probably for 30 days after it is "activated"). I also repeat my comment, that I second the 15th of February as the deadline for the draft. Despotak (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@FlavrSavr: Exactly as Despotak said it's the deadline for the draft. The RfC will take at least 30 days per ARBMAC. I changed the title of the section and my apologies if the previous one was confusing. --Argean (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well then, Friday seems reasonable. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Since the country's name which was the hottest issue is already changed, and based on previous discussion where it logically follows that we're in no position to determine the future name of the nationality, governmental entities, adjectival use without actually acting against WP:NAMECHANGES I suggest that we postpone the draft RfC until we get a reasonable idea of how other media, international organizations refer to the said nationality, governmental entities etc. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with FlavrSavr in part. Is it better to postpone the draft (I talk about the 15/02 date), or to open the RFC for comments this Friday, keep it open for more than the 30 days that the ARBMAC defines and open it for voting at a later date (30 days after the RFC has opened for example). This proposal is build on the basis that this is an actual RFC and not just a poll. --Despotak (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
30 days will not make any difference (read also my comments below). I randomly checked to see e.g. how many edits were done today at the entry for Zoran Zaev and you can see that the main dispute is if he should be called "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian" with many reverts in just a few hours. Editors are looking for answers, and applying their own rules, and I expect the situation to become a hot mess, if we don't hold an RfC ASAP to settle all the issues. --Argean (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
(copy pasted from another section) Argean Yes, you're right - I've seen these edits. Could we agree on that we should start the RfC as soon as we have a good draft RfC? By a good draft, I mean a draft that includes short context on every section (what the Prespa Agreement says, what are the official positions, list of media /organizations using either term) We need to have users that are informed about the relevant Wikipedia policies, the official versions as agreed in Prespa, the approximate media usage of each term as of *current date*. This needn't be big intros, just summaries. I dread that without that users will treat this issue as a mere grammatical / convenience issue which is obviously, not - and we might end up with even more edit warring or even worse, the RfC becoming an edit war itself. I've seen this happening in 2006 and I won't support it. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@FlavrSavr: Fair enough. I wasn't around in wikipedia back in 2006, so I reckon you have much better experience on how much off track the discussion might go. By saying that we need an RfC ASAP, I don't mean to rush it. If we feel that we are not happy with the draft let's give more time to ourselves. BUT we need to use any extra time to improve the draft, not to continue debating on the actual arguments, because it will not lead us anywhere. Currently there might be only a dozen people that are involved in the discussion, but I feel that there is a fair representation of all the spectrum of opinions. And what we need to realize is that we are not actually making the decisions ourselves and not even necessarily leading the discussion when the RfC opens. We just need to make sure that we give a fair, as much neutral, and as much inclusive as possible, listing of all potential solutions on the issues that need to be addressed. --Argean (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Argean: I have bitter experience. :) Please check the 'Proposed modified format' below. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@FlavrSavr: Let's do our best then to make the experience better this time :) --Argean (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead section of 'Nationality of people'

We should add this info before the start of the vote in all sections that are likely to be contested. Users need to have relevant info based on reliable sources to make an informed decision.

Prespa Agreement: Article 1.3.b. of the Prespa Agreement defines the nationality as Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. The official position of the government of North Macedonia is that its citizens should continue to be called "Macedonians," not "North Macedonians."

International organizations: At this moment, it is not clear how international organizations will refer to the nationality in question.

International media: As of *current date* the vast majority of international English media outlets still refer to the nationality as 'Macedonian' (BBC [13], Deutsche Welle [14], The Economist [15], Radio Free Europe [16], Financial Times [17], Bloomberg [18], Forbes [19], Balkan Insight [20][21][22]), however some international media outlets began referring to the nationality as 'North Macedonian' (New Europe [23][24]).

Other states and governmental entities:

Do you agree on this format? --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with the format, we cannot reference articles with a date before 12/02/2018, since this is the day that the country officially changed it's name. So any report previous to 12/02 is either using the constitutional name of the country, the name on the interim accord, or they were biased (in any direction). Despotak (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
So since the RfC draft is about to be completed about the same date, what you're saying is that users should be entirely basing their decision on their speculation about the future use of the terms? I might agree that beginning of 2019 is a reasonable start date, but I disagree on the 15/02 date. Strong points have been made about 'North Macedonian' already being most popular (how? where?), or that it will 'naturally' follow (it hasn't so far, despite the Agreement being signed for months and ratified for weeks). --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
No, I propose we start compiling the list or RSs starting from tomorrow 13/02 and expanding it during the whole duration of the RCF. Saying that the news outlet X was calling the country Macedonia 2 weeks ago, is moot, since that was it's name. Also saying that a news outlet Y was calling the country North Macedonia 2 weeks ago offers only the biased opinion of people that where a litttle too eager to change the name to something other than Macedonia. Despotak (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Ignoring years of usage, then months from the signing of the Agreement, then weeks of it being signed and ratified and then basing the vote on just two days of international media usage doesn't seem to me to be at all fair or reliable. I don't particularly mind the proposed date, however if links before that date are ignored than the vote also would need be postponed. --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)--FlavrSavr (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Are we trying to maintain the status quo or actually see how and if things are changing? Up to 12/2, when Mr. Zaevand Mr. Dimitrov announced to the world that the name of their country is now "North Macedonia", there was no good reason for media outlet to not use the constitutional name or the anme on the interim accord. The common name until 12/02 was Macedonia. no one should be able to offer good arguments against that. But from 12/02 the status quo is no more. Only time can say what the common name will be. In example, on 12/02 VoA published an article[25] where the editor is not able to be consistent through a 500 words article. Half the time they use "North Macedonia", the other half the use "Macedonia". An unbiased source should had no reason to refer to the country in any other term than "Macedonia" (except when reporting what will be the new name) until yesterday. Despotak (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that FlavrSavr has a valid point there. We cannot decide on WP:COMMONNAME by browsing the media for the period that the RfC will be open, let alone for only 2 days. Basically it might take up to years to establish a definite use of new common names after such name changes of countries [26]. To be honest I find all this discussion about media references in order to find out the most common use of terms rather pointless, because no one can actually determine the WP:COMMONNAME right now, since many sources use different adjectives even in the same articles. And it's impossible to predict what will happen in the future either. --Argean (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
So then, Argean - given the fact that WP:NAMECHANGES states that we shouldn't be basing our decision on future events, what's the point of rushing the RfC? Do you think it should be postponed? --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
FlavrSavr, given the history of the dispute is impossible to postpone the RfC, because we need a reviewed/updated WP:MOSMAC, to deal with all the possible rename and move requests and likely edit wars, that will appear all over the place. My opinion is that we should apply all policies available to find the best solutions. WP:NAMECHANGES does not exclude to use WP:OFFICIAL when the change is about an official name. I'm pretty sure that we have enough secondary sources to confirm the validity of the changes of official names. My basic concern is that in cases that there was no change of the official names (e.g. demonyms and adjectival references) or the change of the official name is difficult to adopt in the wikipedia MoS (e.g. nationality), we possibly need to apply WP:COMMONNAME and this will be very difficult to be determined in such a short period. --Argean (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean Yes, you're right - I've seen these edits. Could we agree on that we should start the RfC as soon as we have a good draft RfC? By a good draft, I mean a draft that includes short context on every section (what the Prespa Agreement says, what are the official positions, list of media /organizations using either term) We need to have users that are informed about the relevant Wikipedia policies, the official versions as agreed in Prespa, the approximate media usage of each term as of *current date*. This needn't be big intros, just summaries. I dread that without that users will treat this issue as a mere grammatical / convenience issue which is obviously, not - and we might end up with even more edit warring or even worse, the RfC becoming an edit war itself. I've seen this happening in 2006 and I won't support it. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As much there are some (the minority of) news outlets using the 'North Macedonian' for the government, PM, ministers, authorities, etc. I don't see any reliable sources except New Europe that refer to the people as 'North Macedonians'? Why is it the first voting option or an option at all? --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Because this is a Request for Comments, not a Request for Vote/Poll. People should keep their arguments for the actual RFC. Here is not the proper place to argue how many use the one or the other form. People should be able to bring sources and references to support their thesis there. Even if one editor wants to argue in favor of a specific option, that option should be there. Despotak (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm well aware of what RfC is, I've been on Wikipedia since 2005. However, Future Perfect at Sunrise clearly refers to is as voting (see sections above)--FlavrSavr (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead section of 'State-associated and other public entities'

Prespa Agreement: Article 1.3.f of the Prespa Agreement defines that 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”.

International organizations: At this moment, it is not clear how international organizations will refer to the State-associated and other public entities in question.

International media: As of *current date* the majority of international English media outlets still refer to the State-associated and other public entities as 'Macedonian' (Associated Press [27], Reuters [28], BBC [29], Voice of America [30] [31] [32], The Economist [33], Radio Free Europe [34] [35], Washington Post ([36]), Daily Mail [37], Deutsche Welle [38], Xinhua [39] [40], Balkan Insight [41][42], TRT World [43] ).

However some international media outlets began referring to the State-associated and other public entities as 'North Macedonian' (Euronews [44], [45]; Al Jazeera [46], The Hill [47], EURACTIV [48], New Europe [49][50], Bloomberg [51]).

Some international media have been using the terms interchangeably (The Guardian [52], [53];[54], mostly used 'Macedonian' since 2019)

Other states and governmental entities:

--FlavrSavr (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, while I agree with the format, we cannot reference articles with a date before 12/02/18, since this is the day that the country officially changed it's name. So any report previous to 12/02 is either using the constitutional name of the country, the name of the interim accord, or they were biased (in any direction). Despotak (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of proposals not included in the draft (yet)

OK, I tried to summarize all the proposals that have been suggested, but not included in the draft, at least for now, in order to keep track of any issues that need to be resolved before finalizing the draft. To be honest it's very difficult to keep up with all the discussions above, so it's quite possible that I've omitted some proposal or I've made some mistake, so I apologize beforehand. Please feel free to correct any mistakes you might see below.

Section 1


Section 2
  • Antondimak has suggested to determine the explanatory text.
  • Despotak has suggested to determine the whole order on the disambiguation page (not only the first entry).


Section 3


Section 4


Section 5
- Withdrawing proposals of "Macedonian (North)", due to valid arguments made by Future Perfect at Sunrise and Philly boy92 about WP:SYNTH being applicable, and that a similarly present concepts such as "Macedonia (region)" are excepted for and allowed by guides such as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in titles. - Wiz9999 (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


Sections 6
  • Antondimak suggested to drop section completely. Proposal opposed by Argean. Proposal removed due to lack of support
  • If kept Antondimak has proposed to add Slavic Macedonian(s) or Macedonians (Slavs) in certain contexts. Proposal opposed by Argean Proposal removed due to lack of support


Section 7
  • No current proposals.


Sections 8
  • Antondimak has proposed to add Macedonia and North Macedonia depending on context. Proposal opposed by Argean. Proposal removed due to lack of support
  • Number 57 suggested to drop section completely.


Section 9


Other proposals:


I think that proposals that are clearly and simply stated are easier to follow and more possible to be included in the final draft. --Argean (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you got it all right to me. Questions? is the current running RfC that has had many participants null and void? Is this RfC proposal to supersede the current RfC or be combined? Just odd to see this here when it looks like there is a clear consensus over there.-- Moxy (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually this IS the final RfC (well not open yet) based on the discussion here, because it has to be drafted in a specific format and following the RfC guidelines. Is there any other RfC going on currently and having clear consensus too? --Argean (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I missspoke. ....should have said move request. ... Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Requested move 8 February 2019. Lots there that should have their voice heard as many probably think the outcome would be definitive.--Moxy (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well, the move to North Macedonia already took place this morning, and I don't think that this was going to be addressed with the RfC anyway, but rather all the other issues that are associated with this move and the Prespa agreement in general. I'm just not completely sure if we should keep the first section, on the name of the main article, in order to reaffirm the move (there has been also a proposal to move the article to Republic of North Macedonia) and include the name of the main article in the updated guideline. --Argean (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems about right. Thanks Argean. I have two other proposals. :

1. Inclusion of Wikipedia:NAMECHANGES in its entirety in the introduction to the RfC, being the policy most relevant:

Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names".
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English language sources. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles.
In favor --Despotak (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
In favor too --Argean (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

2. 'North Macedonian(s)' as an option for the nationality or at least merging it as 'Macedonian(s) and North Macedonian(s)' (second option). Based on previous discussions, I'm not sure if anyone actually suggested 'North Macedonian' as a standalone name for the people, although there have been various debates over governmental institutions etc. This option is almost entirely based on WP:CRYSTAL. --FlavrSavr (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn't 3A "North Macedonian(s)"? I am in favor of more options so people can argue on them. --Despotak (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is right now. I'm suggesting its removal. Options make sense if there are some reliable sources to back them up. Not only the Prespa Agreement explicitely states the nationality as Macedonian / Citizen of NM, but so far, there isn't any reliable sources, based on your own proposed criteria above that are using 'North Macedonian(s)' to refer to the nationality (the people). --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
North Macedonian must not become the term for the nationality because the Prespa Agreement which also is a law in both countries, states something else. Wikipedia should abide this. Macedonicus (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Guys please let's not argue on the content right now. I've explained my concerns about this section before [55] and that's the reason that I've made a suggestion that this section has a very specific meaning (short form of nationality mainly used in lead paragraphs of biographies or anywhere else necessary) and does not replace the official term. By the way, I added FlavrSavr's proposals in the summary above. --Argean (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, FlavrSavr I misunderstood that proposal. I'm also in favor of removing 3A from the draft and only add it back if valid arguments are raised. @Macedonicus if we are abiding to the law, should we also drop the whole section on State-associated entities, since the agreement is clear on that mater? --Despotak (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd object to that; I think it's quite a viable proposal that's likely to gain at least some support. Personally I'm still a bit on the fence if I'd support it, but I think I've heard reasonable arguments for it. BTW, does anybody know if we ever had a guideline on whether we could/should describe the citizenship of people from West Germany (between 1949 an 1990) as "West German"? It would be some kind of parallel (not a perfect one, of course), and our practice seems to be inconsistent on it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Could you please reiterate the reasonable arguments behind it that are not based on some sort of future predictions (which are contrary to WP:NAMECHANGES). Is there any reliable source referring to the people as 'North Macedonians'? Meanwhile, we have the official position of the government of North Macedonia - The country can be called "North Macedonia" for short and the national language should continue to be referred to as "Macedonian," state spokesman Mile Boshnjakovski told CNN. He added that its citizens should continue to be called "Macedonians," not "North Macedonians." --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, we can't work entirely without future prediction here; I, for one, haven't seen any source yet since the renaming that mentions people by nationality (in a routine, "use-not-mention" way, as in "X is an Y'ian footballer"), so reliable sources give me no basis for either the one or the other option. And the whole nationality thing is linguistically so close to the generic "adjectival" issue that the two can hardly be treated separately, and for generic adjective, "North Macedonian" (in phrases like "North Macedonian prime minister", "the North Macedonian parliament" etc.) definitely is already in use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I've provided dozens of reliable sources in the "'Lead section of 'Nationality of people'" and in the "Media Link Repository" routinely referring to the nationality as 'Macedonians'. Please note that this section is about the nationality, not the government entities. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I may be missing something, but I don't see many of the links you provided as doing what I asked about: using "Macedonian" for the nationality in a context that is actual "use" of the term (not "mention", i.e. not just quoting the term while describing the renaming), and that's clearly post-renaming, i.e. in a text that otherwise routinely refers to the state as "North Macedonia" throughout. But in any case, it's not for us here to hash out the merits of the case yet again; what I'm saying is that I believe there will be good-faith support for that proposal; you may find such support ill-considered as much as you like but it deserves to have its say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how referring to a nationality with a WP:OR term which has specifically requested and agreed upon *not to be referred to* constitutes "good-faith", but I might be a partisan here. Anyway, I'd be insisting on expanding the lead sections with the Prespa Agreement section articles, official positions of both governments and the current usage of the proposals in media & organizations. This is what WP:NAMECHANGES is all about. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is the exact date of the 'renaming' (the signing of the agreement? the ratification(s) in parliaments? yesterday?), but here's what The Guardian wrote today many Macedonians feel humiliated by the compromise with 60% failing to vote on the issue when put to referendum in September. I hope you realize how sensitive this issue is. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
According to the agreement, the name for the citizenship is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia", not just "Macedonian", and it was a very big part of the negotiation that the latter not be used. However, the official term is too long to use everywhere. That's why we are having this discussion. So I don't think it's unreasonable to have an option to use "North Macedonian" as the short term of "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia". Antondimak (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I see that people want to argue over it, so I suspect 3A should stay as is. And the RfC is the place to develop those arguments. --Despotak (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I also proposed dropping 6, a third option for 8, that being Macedonia and North Macedonia depending on the context. I oppose removing 3A. North Macedonian(s) (I don't know if I need to mention that here but just to be sure). If it is kept, I also just proposed adding a second option in 6, for using Slavic Macedonian(s) or Macedonians (Slavs) in certain contexts. Antondimak (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies Antondimak for missing your suggestion of dropping 6 completely, but your other proposals were very vaguely stated, to be added as proposals. Now that you made your proposals short and clear I added all of them above. And to get to the point, I have already expressed my opinions about them. --Argean (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree it was my fault for not making them clear enough. Antondimak (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment on Deadline Since we are finally making some progress and the proposed deadline for the draft is now Friday 15, 18:00 UTC, I urge everyone that wants to take side on the proposals listed above to make their minds up asap. I will apply all proposals that have no opposition and cross out every proposal that has no endorsements by Thursday 14, 18:00 UTC. Then we can allow ourselves 24 hours to debate for the inclusion or not of the proposals that do not meet unanimity. --Argean (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarification on 3C

I think 3C is not very clear. I think an example would help.

On Goran Pandev, we currently say:

3A would say:

3B would say:

What would 3C would say?

FTR I think 3A and 3B are both viable options and both should be included. Kahastok talk 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It has been suggested that we should remove 3C and clarify that we are talking about the short form for the nationality, used as required by the wikipedia manual of style and not replacing the official term "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia" (see summary above). Actually, this suggestion is so far completely unopposed, so I'll go on and do the change, to make things simpler as suggested by many editors in the discussion. --Argean (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Having not followed this part of the discussion closely, it is not clear to me whether the slash in "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia" is intended to be an integral part of the term, or whether it is merely dividing two alternative standalone forms.
Assuming the former, I would suggest a wording that clearly deprecates this usage except where explicitly referring to the official terminology. Kahastok talk 22:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, it was never clear to me what the proposed usage of the term within wikipedia would be. On the other hand it has never been clarified even by the officials involved in Prespa agreement, if the new official term shall be used as a whole without dropping the slash, or the two component forms can be used interchangeably. My understanding is that the only reason of determining a term for nationality by an RfC, is for those cases that a short form is necessary in order to apply the wikipedia MoS, since determining an official term for nationality is far beyond wikipedia's scope. --Argean (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, once again, sorry for the revert, but there was somewhat of an agreement requested by Despotak that we should only use media reports after the official renaming (February 12). I'm not sure about this. Originally I started by quoting 2019 links, but we should agree upon a certain date and use the references for that point on. --FlavrSavr (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

My process of though is that until the government officially announce the name change (happened 12/02/2019), any report that is not using either the constitutional name or the name on the interim accord, other that to refer to the future name, are biased or pushing an agenda. Many media in Greece for example started using the name "North Macedonia" from the moment the agreement was ratified by the Greek parliament or are still referring to the country as Skopje. For me, this is bias, and that is the reason I did not add any Greek media on the list. I believe that my PoT is in line with WP:NAMECHANGES that reads "we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced." What is the reason of linking RS when the status quo was given? I believe that the point is to see if and/or how the media acts, so to determine if there is a change in the common name (and it's derivatives). --Despotak (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I do agree with Despotak, especially on the lack of validity and the possible bias of secondary sources before the 12/02. That's why all official sources before the 12/02 used the phrase "future Republic of North Macedonia", e.g. NATO, Lithuanian MFA, etc. Ijust want to add that we need to be careful when listing sources and we need to consider how these secondary sources will help the discussion to be productive, not how they will help prove someone's claim for or against one or the other option. --Argean (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason to expect that any source that was using "North Macedonian" prior to 12 February would stop doing so after 12 February, so those sources are perfectly valid for demonstrating what they were meant to demonstrate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
So if they do, we can include them citing an article posted after the 12/02. It sounds a little unproportional to say that it's fair to include sources that use "North Macedonian" before the 12/02, but not sources that use "Macedonian". Let's avoid assumptions and include facts and valid sources, because I don't think that we are drafting the RfC to demonstrate anything, but rather to record all information useful for the process of decision making. --Argean (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Argean. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed modified format

Since the voting format was changed, I propose the following changed format for the sections.

Rationale for the modified format proposal:

We need to have users that are informed about the relevant Wikipedia policies, the official versions as agreed in Prespa, the approximate media usage of each term as of *current date* - all presented with reliable sources. Without this, or at least a sensible media research, this RfC would become a giant crystal ball where users would speculate on the future use of the suggested options or what the term should be , becoming a terrible precedent for prescriptive, rather than descriptive encyclopedia. Keeping the users in the dark and treating this as merely a grammatical issue is not what Wikipedia should be. It is not simply a grammatical issue, it's an issue with important international political aspects, and also an issue of identity. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


Main article

What should the main article on North Macedonia be called?

Background

The article that was previously named Republic of Macedonia was moved to North Macedonia following an RfC that was conducted on the talk page of that article.

Article 1.3.a. of the Prespa Agreement defines the official name of the country as Republic of North Macedonia, and the official short name as North Macedonia. Both sides have signed and ratified and this renaming entered into force on 12 February 2019.

Before the official change of the state name on 12 February 2019, most international media referred to the country as 'Macedonia'.

After 12 February 2019 international media referred to the country as follows:

Media reports that use the term "North Macedonia": (list with WP:RS)

Media reports that use the term "Republic of North Macedonia": (list with WP:RS)

Media reports that use the term "Macedonia": (list with WP:RS)

Disambiguation

What should the order of items on Macedonia be?

Nationality of people

What should people from North Macedonia be called? The selected term shall be used as a short form instead of the official term "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia", when nationality is required by the Wikipedia manual of style (such as in lead paragraphs of person biographies, see MOS:OPENPARABIO), and is irrespective of people's ethnicity.

  • Option A: The people from North Macedonia should be called North Macedonian(s).
  • Option B: The people from North Macedonia should be called Macedonian(s).

Background

Article 1.3.b. of the Prespa Agreement defines the nationality as Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. The official position of the government of North Macedonia is that its citizens should continue to be called "Macedonians," not "North Macedonians." The official position of the government of Greece is unknown as of *current date*. It is not clear whether international organizations will use both Macedonian (s) and citizen(s) of the Republic of North Macedonia or prefer one over the other.

Before the official change of the state name on 12 February 2019, most international media referred to the nationality as 'Macedonian(s)'.

After 12 February 2019 international media referred to the nationality as follows:

Media reports that use the term "Macedonian": (list with WP:RS)

Media reports that use the term "North Macedonian": (list with WP:RS)

State-associated and other public entities

What term should be used when referring to state-associated entities, including governmental organisations and official ranks, as well as other public entities from North Macedonia as specified in Prespa agreement?

  • Option A: The term used when referring to state-associated and other public entities should be "... of North Macedonia" only. e.g. Government of North Macedonia, not (North) Macedonian Government.
  • Option B: The term used when referring to state-associated and other public entities should be either "North Macedonian" or "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. e.g. the North Macedonian Government or the Government of North Macedonia.
  • Option C: The term used when referring to state-associated and other public entities should be "Macedonian", e.g. Macedonian Government. "... of North Macedonia" can be used where a similar form would be used for other countries.

Background

Article 1.3.f. of the Prespa Agreement states that the adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities shall be in line with the official name or its short name, that is, of the Republic of North Macedonia or of North Macedonia. Outside of the Prespa Agreement, as of *current date* the governments of North Macedonia and Greece haven't specified or made any official guidelines concerning this particular adjectival use. It is not clear how international organizations will interpret this article.

Before the official change of the state name on 12 February 2019, most international media referred to the state-associated and other public entities as 'Macedonian'.

After 12 February 2019 international media referred to the state-associated and other public entities as follows:

Media reports that use the term "Macedonian": (list with WP:RS)

Media reports that use the term "North Macedonian": (list with WP:RS)

Media reports that use other terms: (list with WP:RS)

Adjective

What adjective should be used to refer to other entities from North Macedonia, not specified above? This includes article titles, references in articles and the infobox on the main article.

  • Option A: The adjective used to refer to such entities from North Macedonia should be "Macedonian" only, eg. the Macedonian countryside.
  • Option B: The adjective used to refer to such entities from North Macedonia should be "North Macedonian" only, eg. the North Macedonian countryside.
  • Option C: The adjective used to refer to such entities from North Macedonia should be either North Macedonian or Macedonian, depending on context.

Background

Article 7.3. of the Prespa Agreement states that when reference is made to North Macedonia, Macedonian denotes its territory, language, people and their attributes, with their own history, culture, and heritage, distinctly different from those of the Greek Macedonians. Outside of the Prespa Agreement, as of *current date* the governments of North Macedonia and Greece haven't specified or made any official guidelines concerning the adjectival use. It is not clear how international organizations will interpret this article.

Before the official change of the state name on 12 February 2019, most international media used the adjective 'Macedonian' when referring to non-state entities from the Republic of Macedonia.

After 12 February 2019 international media used the following adjectives to refer to non-state entities as follows:

Media reports that use the term "Macedonian": (list with WP:RS)

Media reports that use the term "North Macedonian": (list with WP:RS)

Media reports that use other terms: (list with WP:RS)

Historical names

What should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in other articles about the periods and events between 1991 and 2019?

  • Option A: Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia should still be used in historical articles.
  • Option B: Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia should still be used in historical articles, with an optional note similar to "now North Macedonia".
  • Option C: North Macedonia and Republic of North Macedonia should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in historical articles.

Background

Upon entry of the Prespa Agreement (Article 1.7) 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 North Macedonia in any official context.

The survey should follow after this. Does anyone have any objections on the format? --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Agree Personally, I'm pretty happy with the format. My only concern is the one that I expressed earlier, regarding the sources and WP:COMMONNAMES, when WP:OFFICIALNAME cannot apply. But we need to have as much information as possible, so let be it. --Argean (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The background sections are not neutral in their wording. Sentences like "the Prespa Agreement states", "The official position of the government of North Macedonia", "The official position of the government of Greece is unknown as of *current date*", and "before 12 February" are bordering on POV pushing. Wikipedia is not here to implement the Prespa Agreement, and this is nothing but a blatant attempt to force Macedonian as an adjective erga omnes; something which you have done consistently throughout this process. I also oppose the way in which you the adjective debate has been hijacked. You have listed the adjective options as 1. Macedonian 2. North Macedonian 3. Both. The actual proposal was 1. of North Macedonia or North Macedonian 2. Macedonian --Michail (blah) 22:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
We can talk about the actual wording but are you opposed to the actual format of citing the Prespa Agreement, official positions of governments and citing reliable sources to determine media usage? How is this NPOV, according to you? As far as your contention that I have "hijacked the debate", I haven't made any proposals for the actual options except the inclusion North Macedonia's which was rejected, and the deletion of "North Macedonian" as a standalone identifier for the natonality, which was also rejected. All the options were set by Future Perfect at Sunrise --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently an active call on the Macedonian wikipedia to get users to come and vote on "the adjectives that will be used in the future for our country" tomorrow, in which you are involved. If google translate is anything to go by, I'd say it's pretty POV heavy, particularly with intent to stop the use of "North Macedonian" in the English Wikipedia because it's not specified in the agreement. In it you explain that this is why you insist on putting "background information" sections (and I'm assuming also the media links). My personal opinion is that those background sections are not exactly neutral, with their references to the official policies of North Macedonia, the most common term prior to 12 February, etc. You can see why I think there are NPOV issues here. --Michail (blah) 23:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually I'm explaining that I am not happy with how the RfC is structured. I've laid my reasons above why. If it comforts you I deleted my comment since. I cannot delete that I'm a Macedonian myself, so I guess everything I say or do makes me POV. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not the fact that you are Macedonian. It's edits like this in which you oppose moving articles not due to Wikipedia rules, but because the Prespa Agreement does not specify "North Macedonian". And this is also pretty clear from your now-deleted post. That's why I do not think you are neutral. You are pushing the POV that Wikipedia should abide by the Prespa Agreement, even though Wikipedia is merely here to report what's actually being used; including North Macedonian. I would have been very interested to have heard your opinion on forcing the Interim Accord on the original NCMAC. Surely with your passionate interest in respecting international treaties you would be in favour of implementing it on Wikipedia fully. --Michail (blah) 00:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I will not allow this to devolve into a series of personal attacks. I don't think that you are actually suggesting that the Prespa Agreement is completely unimportant, so if you're not comfortable about me quoting articles from it, let other users rephrase them. Also, what about the media section? You're opposed to it completely? --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
There are a number of issues with some of your media sources. I am not proposing Prespa is irrelevant, but I am also not proposing that it is the word of God and must be implemented to the letter, nor that certain phrases should not be used on Wikipedia because they are not explicitely mentioned in Prespa. If Prespa is to be used as evidence in these sections, then it should also include the part where it says that "Macedonia(n)" is to be used by both Greece and North Macedonia for the respective cultures and so on, at which point I think it loses its value as an argument. --Michail (blah) 00:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Again, I think you're confusing format with actual wording - you contend some particular articles of Prespa mentioned or some particular media that I, or somebody else put in that list (that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be used in the RfC itself!). It was definitely not my intention to impose Prespa on Wikipedia, even If I wanted to - that would be impossible given the intricacies of the agreement. Let me rephrase it like this. Do you think that the RfC should point to specific articles in the Prespa Agreement that are relevant to the options on the table, at all? Y/N? Do you think that the official positions of North Macedonia and Greece are relevant for RfC to be there, at all? Y/N? Do you think that there should be a media research list of reliable sources present at the RfC, at all? Y/N? --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And again I am going to explain that including Prespa creates more problems than it solves which is why I don't think it should be used as part of the reasoning. If both North Macedonia and Greece have a right to be Macedonian, then it means no one can monopolise the term on Wikipedia if we are to follow the agreement. So no, I don't think it's relevant to the point of being used as evidence. Was the interim accord relevant and used as evidence in the previous RfC? The official positions of North Macedonia and Greece are also irrelevant. See my comments re your reliable sources because some of them are questionable. --Michail (blah) 01:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@FlavrSavr: Actually the latter (removing 3A per WP:OR) is still in contention, because it hasn't met unanimity. And a kind request to both: let's focus on the drafting and not on the debate. --Argean (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92: I agree that we probably need to change the wording, but I gave a very specific explanation on why using February 12 as a cutoff is the only way to achieve accuracy and neutrality. We can all challenge NPOV-related issues AFTER we open the RfC --Argean (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Still opposed on NPOV concerns. There is no point in opening the RfC if it's riddled with POV "background information" to help "guide" people to the "right decision". --Michail (blah) 23:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, Kahastok, Wiz9999, Danski454, Despotak, Antondimak, Antondimak}}, ThorstenNY and others involved in this debate please state whether you support the proposed modified format (not the actual wording). It seems to me that before the start of the RfC we should at least have a list of media and how are they referring to the nationality, adjective etc. That is, unless we want to start the RfC based on personal preferences. --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@FlavrSavr: I will say this to you, here, once, Prespa does not settle the entire dispute. It is a HUGE first step in the right direction, and it is a historic first step, but it is not going to resolve ALL the contentious issues in one fell swoop. It has just addressed the most practical ones preventing the two governments from interacting with each other in a normal way. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Wiz9999: I realize that, thanks. --FlavrSavr (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Inclusion of Backgrounds I wouldn't worry about adding any references & info before the actual RfC starts, we will have 30 days to dicuss this, the background stuff will come up again, I promise you. That being said, and to continue from my respose above, the main problem with Prespa that we will face now is that it avoids addressing grammatical specifics. The over-reliance of the background information statements above on citations from Prespa, and on official government positions, is also a problem, because NO international agreement will dictate what grammar/terms English language speakers will ultimately end up using (this is EN.Wikipedia after all). But, it is still too early to determine exactly what will be WP:COMMONNAME terms from now, so editors simply need to make a call one way or another (this is what the RfC is for, after all). Just remember, no one ever said that parts of this opening RfC discussion couldn't be re-opened and re-discussed in future when evidence is more prevalent for English speaker's usages. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, but then „if it is still too early to determine exactly what will be WP:COMMONNAME terms from now“ and we're obviously ignoring WP:OFFICIALNAME, how are editors to determine anything? As I said, while I realize grammar plays a huge part, other political/identity issues are of tantamount importance. Don't you think that this RfC will actually prescribe, rather than describe the WP:COMMONNAME? Is that NPOV? Shouldn't we at least include a media list of relevant sources? --FlavrSavr (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
As I said, I am confident finding relevant sources will come up. If 30 days go by with 10% this much activity, discussions on sources will definitely be debated. It's good that enterprising users such as yourself have gone out and found this media/info before the start of discussions, so we can always come to this page and retrieve them as needed, but they don't need to be in the body text of the RfC, in my opinion. Less is more when it comes to the sections of the discussion, it will help to focus each topic. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft End - 18:00 UTC 15 February 2019

RESULT: DRAFT TO END AT 18:00 UTC 15 FEBRUARY 2019
9 Supports, 0 Opposes - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Right, I am fed up with us having a non specific timescale on completing this draft. I propose that we set 18:00 UTC on 15 February 2019 as the ABSOLUTE cut-off point to edits/proposals being made to the draft. This RFC needed to begin as of 24 hours ago, and we have already seen some conflict over the ambiguity in articles.
Note: I only want to see your Support and Oppose responses in this section, with signatures.
I do not want to see ANY debate or discussion over the matter. You can put that in another section. After 24h from the posting of my edit now I will close this section, and if the supports outweigh the opposes then 18:00 UTC 15 February 2019 will be set as our 'Go Live' time. This really should give everyone enough time to finalize their thoughts, come to a rudimentary understanding, and get the ideas in the draft. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns about Current Readability of this Talk Page

Hello all.

I have been trying to follow along with the discussions here. As we approach what seems likely to be a 18:00 UTC 15 February 2019 deadline, could I start using the following template; {{archive top yellow|result=Reasons. {{subst:nac}} ~~~~|status=Done/Finalized/No Action}}, to start closing conversations such as Proposed modified format and Voting format? I find they have no use collecting further comment here as it relates to drafting the RfC.

I really am not sure what is going on here, and so closing out the threads that we don't need to spend time on would help.

Side Note: Lastly, I just wanted bring to your attention this unrelated proposal. I find it slightly relevant to this situation. That is only if you have time, though.

Thank you all. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 03:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Demonym, take 2

Should we add this proposal under the "Other proposals" banner? It might not be a bad idea to have the demonym debate on the sideline of this larger RfC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support -- Jingiby (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • What's the relation of that proposal with the current "adjectival" and "nationality" sections? If there's something in it that the current sections don't cover, wouldn't it be better to sharpen the wording in them rather than adding yet another section? And I really, really think we should avoid using the technical term "demonym" in the RfC, because everybody who's been using it seems to understand it differently, and very few seem to use it in the sense it's actually used in linguistics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In favor, but I fear that people (myself included) often confuse demonyms as nationality. Is a "(North) Macedonian footballer" a denonym or a nationality? When do we use demonyms and when nationalities on wikipedia. Is nationality only reserved for the info box? I ask all those questions, because this is the most sensitive subject of the whole debate at this point. The Prespa Agreement is deliberately vague on the matter, to help the politician "sell" the compromise on both countries. Personally, I was against the Prespa Agreement, exactly due to this vagueness. I was always in favor of a composite name, assuming that nationality and demonyms will follow suit (ethnicity is self identifiable, so it cannot be part of the agreement). I know Wikepedia is an encyclopedia and reports instead of defining, but people look at us trying to find more arguments in favor of their cause. The renaming of the main article was in the news here in Greece yesterday[56][57][58] (sources are in Greek), and it was considered a small "victory". --Despotak (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Demonym is almost synonymous with nationality. No need to open another section already covered. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a tricky one. I was one of the first that proposed to include the demonyms in the draft, given the fact that the question was raised many times at Talk:North Macedonia but after reading lengthy discussions where editors argued relentlessly over the definition of the term, I realize that including it will actually cause more confusion rather than resolving the current issues. One of the alternatives that I earlier suggested but never made it an actual proposal, is to change the lead text as to adjectival and demonymic forms to fit to the style of List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. On the other hand I know that the definition of the term is so vague and its utility is limited to linguistic issues associated with the unpredictability of English language, so I don't really know what we should do with it. --Argean (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point because I fail to see any useful distinction between this proposed question and the question already asked at section 3. So far as I can tell, both are effectively asking "what adjective do we use for people from North Macedonia". Kahastok talk 20:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The reason why I bring this up, is because I KNOW it will be a point of contention on the country's article (specifically the cause of edit wars on the infobox section). However, if a ruling on the matter was to be made here (at the time of the larger RfC), clearly and definitively, it would carry more weight later on when editors start changing it to their own specific liking. The same issue exists with the redirect pages I keep going on-and-on about, if a ruling is made clearly and definitively here on MOSMAC it can be referred to in future when edit wars break out over the redirects. Of course, if most here prefer to keep it out of the talks, I won't stop this, but I will state that it WILL come back up in the next 30 days. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Wiz9999's reasoning above. --Michail (blah) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing the "Historical names" section

I boldly removed this section last night – it's standard practice to use the name of the country as it was at the time in articles (for instance 1962 Burmese coup d'état, 1921 Persian coup d'état, 1960 Basutoland general election in article titles) – and there is no need to deviate from this practice here. However, the section has been reinstated, so I'm formally proposing that we remove it as an unnecessary distraction. Number 57 09:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the amount of over-eager editing introducing "North Macedonia" in anachronistic ways I've seen yesterday, I do think we should include a clause about it in the reworked guideline in the end, and to do that, it would probably be best if we also put it up to be explicitly endorsed in the RfC. But if there's been nobody here who seriously advocated the alternative (of using "N.M." retroactively), maybe we could move the point to a "non-contentious housekeeping" section, including all the stuff where we don't expect competing options to be !voted on? (I suggested the other day that all such sections should be condensed into one.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think that it should be removed, because I also spotted some crazy edits suggesting revisionism, but I do share the concern that in the current draft it's given far too more attention than it should (same applies for terms for language, culture, etc). I support to condense these issues in a section that reaffirms current policies. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: would you like to make the proposal more explicit so we can decide on it? --Argean (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning Oppose. The way I (perhaps naively) understand naming conventions’ purpose, it not just to set policy, but also to explicitly restate existing policy for specific, contentious issues. Precisely because I emphatically agree with usage such as 1921 Persian … etc., I think it might be wise to make it explicit that this precedent applies to the now-historic Republic of Macedonia. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with FPaS on this. It should be affirmed by the RFC so that it can go into the guideline, but it's fair to treat it as housekeeping. Kahastok talk 21:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Removal of the section. I think it is important to still have this discussion over the coming days. It should (hopefully) not be too contentious, but it would be wrong to assume editors will be willing to avoid talking about this. If it is preferred that this be a part of housekeeping, fine. I don't agree with that view, but I am not opposed to it either, but we really shouldn't have it removed entirely from the talks. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Northern and Southern

The draft survey suggests various targets for redirects Northern Macedonia and Southern Macedonia. As these terms are potentially ambiguous, we might also introduce options to write disambiguation pages at those titles or to target the redirects to an existing dab such as Macedonia. Certes (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was against the idea of having them be disambiguation pages, as we only really need one cohesive dab page, which Macedonia suffices for as at the moment, rather than several smaller dab pages. Considering the cardinal direction nature of these two dab pages it seemed more reasonable to direct them to the "region" page rather than the dab page (I was also trying to make the options list as brief as possible), but seeing as this concern has been raised, I think it makes sense to accommodate the option. I will add it now, hopefully this does not make the range of options so long that it causes problems for the voting. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd still prefer just leaving the topic out. This RfC is not for "all possible naming issues arising from the Macedonia issue", but about how to update the guideline about Macedonia. There's no reason why we would have to regulate those particular details in a guideline; they can just be discussed and decided via the normal RfD process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Let’s keep things as simple as possible to help us sort out the most important contentious issues. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it would simplify matters to remove the question but, if it remains, a dab and/or redirect to dab should be an option. Certes (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
If you think it is too complex to do within this RfC, I am happy to drop it from the list. I proposed it originally since it came up in the previous discussion. --Michail (blah) 22:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The reason why I bring this up, is because I KNOW it will be a point of contention, and potentially spark loads of edit wars across several different redirect pages. However, if a ruling on the matter was to be made here (at the time of the larger RfC), clearly and definitively, it would carry more weight later on when editors start changing the redirects to their own specific liking. The same issue exists with the demonym stuff I keep going on-and-on about above, if a ruling is made clearly and definitively here on MOSMAC it can be referred to in future when edit wars break out over the demonym. Of course, if most here prefer to remove it from the RfC, I won't stop this, but I will state that it WILL come back up in the next 30 days. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of proposals to be debated for the remaining 24 hrs

I feel the need to post the summary again, because apparently we are currently at a 24 hours countdown. I really hope that I haven't missed anything, because it's really impossible to follow all discussions properly, since everybody keeps debating on the actual proposals making our lives harder, so I do apologize once more if I missed anything. Please make a comment below the list if I've made any mistakes so we can correct them. The current list includes all proposals that haven't met the criteria of unanimity as of Thursday 14, 18:00 UTC. If anyone has strong objections for excluding their proposal, or has an alternative proposal to make, please provide an updated rationale of the proposal that should take into account the discussions above.

Section 1

  • Proposal to omit "Republic of North Macedonia" option and move issue to "non-contentious housekeeping" section. Proposed by Fut.Perf., endorsed by Despotak, FlavrSavr, Kahastok, opposed by Argean Proposal applied as unopposed
Opposition withdrawn to facilitate finalization of draft. --Argean (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Support by me as well. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Section 2

  • Antondimak has suggested to determine the explanatory text. Options include North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia, now Republic of North Macedonia
  • Despotak has suggested to determine the whole order on the disambiguation page (not only the first entry) as an open question. Supported by Antondimak
  • Future Perfect at Sunrise has suggested omitting the issue from the RfC (except for the non-contentious item that "Macedonia" should remain a dab page.

Section 3

Section 4

Section 5

  • No current proposals

Section 6

Section 7

  • "Non-contentious housekeeping" suggestion (see above) Proposal applied as unopposed

Section 8

  • Number 57 suggested to drop section completely.

Section 9

Other proposals


We could make separate sections, that would be open just for voting and no more debating. Please let me know what your thoughts are. --Argean (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (summary of proposals)

  • Comment @Antondimak and Despotak:, you have made proposals for section 2, that are not very detailed and currently have no support or opposition. Could you please update if your proposals are still on the table, and if so, rephrase them in a more specific format? Thank you. --Argean (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I propose we: 1) Determine what the explanatory text will be, the reasoning being that the actual page seems to change continuously so if we don't address that here we will have problems with revisionism in the future. So we should add a subsection to 2A with a choice between North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia, now Republic of North Macedonia, as these appear to be the most common proposals.2) Determine if the explanatory text will remain there indefinitely or, if it's temporary, for how long it will remain. The rationale being that this could be a temporary solution for as long as the former name is part of recent memory and therfore is useful for explanation. (By the way the ping didn't work, maybe it's because you added a "{" in a later edit. Just so you know.) Antondimak (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I see people raging an edit war over the whole order of the first section (and only that section). Macedonia (ancient kingdom) is now second, while yesterday was last, Macedonia (region) is now last, while it was 3rd, etc. I propose we open the whole order to the RFC so we can prevent those edit wars in the future. There are valid arguments for most of the 24 permutations. --Despotak (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • There was also the proposal from Future Perfect at Sunrise to consolidate sections 1, 6, and 7 into a single "Housekeeping" section, where we'll only ask for a formal show of "support" for reaffirmation. I am also in favor of this idea. --Despotak (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I should also note that I support Despotak's proposal. Antondimak (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry guys, I'm losing track of the proposals and I'm really tired today. I'm thinking that if a proposal is too complicated to be formatted according to the style we selected earlier, how can we ask editors to comment and vote? My mind right now is that when the proposal for deadline is confirmed later tonight, I'll list all open proposals, as separate sections, open just for voting until the deadline tomorrow evening and the decision will be based on majority. Let's try to make well formatted proposals, otherwise the draft will become too complicated. I can't think of any alternatives right now. --Argean (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I also support this. --Michail (blah) 22:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I also support that, including section 1 on the basis of the consensus achieved at the RM. It seems to me to make little sense to treat sections 1 and 7 differently since they're asking fundamentally the same question ("what do we call the country in question?").
We also need to recruit three uninvolved closers - at WP:AN? Might be worth doing that, if not before the RFC, then before the thirty days are up so that they can coordinate between themselves. Last time the closers were designated by Arbcom, but that doesn't seem to be a requirement.
As a side point, I would suggest that once this is all done and the dust has settled, we should ask Arbcom to review the RFC and consider - in light of the experience gained since last June - whether such a cumbersome process is still necessary. Not saying the answer is "no", only that it might be. Kahastok talk 22:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, you are all right by saying that as a concept of "housekeeping" all the uncontested terms section 1 should be merged too, but there were half a dozen people requesting the article to be moved to "Republic of North Macedonia" and I bet that there will be at least a few Greeks requesting that, because they don't accept the use of the word Macedonia and prefer the use of "technical" terms. If I'm the only one that thinks that we need to address that, then I withdraw my opposition to make things easier. --Argean (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I have just made the following edit to the housekeeping section. Revert it if you disagree with how I adjusted the section. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Section 5 (Adjective) should be reworded to its original: 1. "of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonian" 2. "Macedonian". The current wording makes does not even mention "of North Macedonia" as a possible adjectival reference. Also I think if option C is to be included in that, it needs to be made clear under what circumstances "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian" is used; this is unclear now and without clarity it has no point in being there. --Michail (blah) 22:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Was there ever a proposal to include "of North Macedonia" in section 5? It's not even an adjective. We could of course still improve the lead text saying that any other prepositional or possessive attributes (e.g. of X, or X's) could still be used, when this would normally be done in natural language.--Argean (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
PS Where X we could actually put North Macedonia, because X refers to country's name. --Argean (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the original argument was to do with whether we should be using a shorter version of "of North Macedonia". "North Macedonian" was added so as to authorise its use on Wikipedia as an alternative adjective to the lengthy "of North Macedonia"; this is where the media references began, to show that it is more popular than "of North Macedonia". --Michail (blah) 22:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
But this was about section 4 (state-related, etc), because the term was included in the agreement and we needed to see what the options are when we wouldn't normally use the prepositional form in a naturally constructed sentence. Otherwise why debate about it? --Argean (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Section 5 needlessly restricts itself to "other entities from North Macedonia, not specified above". What if it is neither a person nor an entity but a thing? Like, where you might refer to a Serbian road or a Croatian island, what term do we use if the road or island pertains to North Macedonia? By the current wording this is not covered by this RFC at all.
I believe what is intended is to ask which should be the adjectival form of "North Macedonia", where not dealing either with people or with state/governmental bodies. Kahastok talk 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly how I see it too. Can anyone reword it efficiently? --Argean (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
When not dealing either with people or with state/government bodies, what adjective should be given? For example, where one might refer to a Serbian road, how might one refer to a road in North Macedonia? 1. "a Macedonian road" 2. "a North Macedonian road" 3. Both depending on context – I added the "depending on context" bit, but is there need to have an option for both if its only with regards to non-animate objects that are not state/government bodies? It seems like this can be a binary option of whether or not it needs "North". --Michail (blah) 23:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, fair enough, but we can remove the example, because it's not necessarily representative and suggestive that this refers only to objects/inanimate entities. And no it's definitely not necessarily a binary question. What would you do with Macedonian mafia for example? And what about Macedonian cuisine that keeps moving back and forth to North Macedonian cuisine? --Argean (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I see your point. What would the context be then? I think we need to explain what context would mean. The only way I can see this working effectively is asking the question "is it related/linked to North Macedonia or Macedonians (ethnic group)? If North Macedonia, then North Macedonian (or "of North Macedonia"), if Macedonians (ethnic group), then Macedonian.--Michail (blah) 23:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That's why I keep saying that adjectives are the trickiest part. One rational solution is to include in the lead the text from Prespa agreement that says that the adjective "Macedonian" should be used when referring to the language, culture, etc, so it should be uncontested. But then who defines what is culture and what is not? We could also still leave it open, as it is, but I bet that it has to be clarified at some point. --Argean (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Prespa also recognises that Greece can also use 'Macedonian' to refer to its culture though, so I don't think this is so helpful. It says that both North Macedonia and Greece can use 'Macedonian' to refer to culture because they have different understandings of what 'Macedonian' means. When reference is made to the First Party [Greece], these terms denote not only the area and people of the northern region of the First Party, but also their attributes, as well as the Hellenic civilization, history, culture, and heritage of that region from antiquity to present day. --Michail (blah) 00:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removing 3A. Nationality is one thing. The way I read Prespa, it prescribes an official wording for nationality, but not for other ways of describing people somehow connected to the country. So a soccer player could well play for the North Macedonian national team without necessarily having RoNM citizenship. I very much doubt there’d be many English-lanuguage publications that would then call him anything other than a North Macedonian soccer (or football) player. If we were to impose “Macedonian” for person connected to/representing North Macedonia, we’d be imposing a convention that (A) Prespa appears to be silent on and (B) few if any sources (outside North Macedonia) might ever use. Demonym is so ambiguous to begin with, even before considering differences in scope between languages. Construing demonym so narrowly that it only takes into consideration the concept of citizenship doesn’t feel right. Preserving the natural option (“an person from Xia is an Xian”) shouldn’t be precluded before people even get to vote/formally comment. —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't that count as a state-related adjective, either 4 or 5, as opposed to 3? --Michail (blah) 01:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I looked at the body of 3, which talks about a person from NM. That’s demonym, potentially wider in scope that nationality (which is ambiguous in and of itself, but I guess we’re using it here as being identical with citizenship.) Also, the discussion we’ve had about 4 and 5 seemed to only consider adjectival uses that did not describe persons. But you’re right in the sense that the section is titled Nationality. Perhaps that, too, is a touch less precise than ideal. Arrrgh! —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@ThorstenNY: Sorry, but I think you're making crystal ball predictions here. Moreover A) Prespa specifically defines the nationality as 'Macedonian / citizen of NM' and makes a point in avoiding the term 'North MacedoniaN' B) The vast majority, or even the entirety of English-language publications right now are avoiding the use of 'North Macedonian' when referring to the nationality (some have started to use it for State-related entities, but not for the people). To illustrate how sensitive this topic is, let me just quote Knut Fleckenstein apology via his tweet. --FlavrSavr (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal #2 Discussion

(Referring to the section below)
I am actually not opposed to re-wording the disambiguation section. I just think we need to state what the 4 dab entries are and not leave it open ended like the proposal suggests. Yes, I know there are 16 possibilities for sorting 4 entries, but we could, say, list the 3 most prominent sorting orders and have a fourth option that just says "Sorting order not listed, needs further discussion." - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiz9999, I honestly just think that we should not be having this discussion at all for this very reason. There are so many possibilities of what can be sorted and why. I say we maintain status quo and focus on the more important issues/proposals addressed in this RfC. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 02:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Final vote for proposals

Now that the official deadline has been set for February 15, 18:00 UTC, I'm listing all the proposals that haven't met a unanimous support or opposition so far. It's getting a headache to follow all the discussions above. Please, cast your final votes, noting down only if you support or oppose the proposal. Nothing more. The vote shall be open until 2 hours before the deadline, i.e. February 15, 16:00 UTC, and the decisions will be based on majority and will be final. Thanks to everyone for participating in the discussion to draft this RfC and I hope that we did the best we could in such a short time and given the circumstances. --Argean (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm pinging everyone that has particpated in the discussion above @Future Perfect at Sunrise, Marianian, Philly boy92, Kahastok, Resnjari, Danski454, Kudzu1, SilentResident, FlavrSavr, Wiz9999, Antondimak, Macedonicus, Matthew hk, Sashko1999, ThorstenNY, Moxy, Despotak, and Number 57.. --Argean (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC) and @Jingiby, MattLongCT, and Certes:

Jingiby, Certes, and I did not get the ping. This should now be rectified as of this exact comment.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 02:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
My apologies. I'm so tired that keep forgetting "|" and "{" here and there... --Argean (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, nah it wasn't that. Notifications only work under certain circumstances. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 02:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, I will totally point out that I totally just dropped the ball and forgot an "{" just now.(edit conflict) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 02:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Well MattLongCT, it seems that actually I forgot 4 tildes after all :)--Argean (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Urgent @Future Perfect at Sunrise, Philly boy92, Kudzu1, SilentResident, FlavrSavr, Wiz9999, ThorstenNY, Despotak, MattLongCT, and Jingiby. I really hate partial yes and nos, so I went and added boldly my suggestion at proposal #5, which is now almost useless and we can actually remove it (Btw @FlavrSavr: I'm really sorry that I messed your proposal up earlier). I hope that there is no opposition against that, otherwise we keep the proposal as "North Macedonia's" only. Another issue that I just realized, is that if both proposal #1 and #2 get up-voted, there has to be some serious rewording/reformatting, which I'm afraid I don't have the time to do. I see that there are some requests on rewording, but I'm afraid that no matter we reword the leads, we'll never make them perfect. I'll be back just before the deadline. --Argean (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, well no deadline was set for when this voting was going to end (sometime before the 'Go live" time to allow time for the edits to occur), so I will make one now. If we consider all votes to be in by 2h before the time then we should be fine to make the changes. That equates to 16:00 UTC (or about 4h from now). Yes, section 1 will probably need looking at a little more, but in principal most will have agreed to something, so it shouldn't be such a big issue. I will make a new section below so we can start talking about wording 'IF' Proposal #1 & #2 pass. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Wiz9999: Well, I thought that I did set it at 18:00, hoping that we'll not keep debating further after we close the voting. You do have a valid point though that we need some time to apply the changes, so 16:00 seems fair enough. I'm not sure if I'll be able to close the sections at 16:00, so please feel free to do so. --Argean (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Last minute thoughts. I really hope that we do realize that by including Section 7 (Other Proposals), we would also be inviting users to come up with their own during the course of this RfC. I feel that is a mistake and the section should be renamed (Let's call it Redirects if Proposal 8 doesn't pass). I also want on record that I heavily disagree with Proposal #2. This quest would distract from more important matters during the RfC for only a minor change. I am pinging all users who voted in Proposals 7 and 2, so that they may receive this message. @Philly boy92, ThorstenNY, SilentResident, Jingiby, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Argean, Despotak, Antondimak, and Wiz9999: ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 13:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, Proposal 1 & 2 are somewhat incompatible. All editors are encouraged to note this and to really try picking one over the other. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 13:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that it matters since it seems that we are the minority, but just for the record I agree with everything you said. --Argean (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal #1

APPROVED
12 Supports, 1 Opposes - Argean (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add a new question at section 1 (Disambiguation) that would read
"What should the explanatory text added be?" (Note: If both proposals #1 and #2 are up-voted section has to be reformatted)

  • Option A: It should be North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia
  • Option B: It should be Republic of Macedonia, now Republic of North Macedonia

Survey for proposal #1

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal #2

RESULT: APPROVED
6 Supports, 3 Opposes, 1 conditional support- Argean (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rephrase the question at section ((Disambiguation) to an open question:
"What should the order of items on Macedonia be?" (Note: If both proposals #1 and #2 are up-voted section 1 has to be reformatted)

Survey for proposal #2

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal #3

RESULT: REJECTED
2 Supports, 8 Opposes - Argean (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove completely section 1 (Disambiguation).

Survey for proposal #3

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal #4

RESULT: REJECTED
3 Supports, 8 Opposes - Argean (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove "Option A: The people from North Macedonia should be called North Macedonian(s)." from section 2 (Nationality of people)

Survey for proposal #4

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal #5

RESULT: REJECTED
4 Supports/1 Partial Support, 9 Opposes - Argean (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add "Option D: The term used when referring to state-associated and other public entities should be North Macedonia's." at section 3 (State-associated and other public entities)

Survey for proposal #5

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal #6

RESULT: REJECTED
1 Supports, 9 Opposes - Argean (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove completely section 5 (Historical names).

Survey for proposal #6

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal #7

RESULT: REJECTED
3 Supports, 6 Opposes - Argean (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove completely section 7 (Other proposals)

Survey for proposal #7

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal #8

RESULT: NO ABSOLUTE MAJORITY MET/ PLURALITY FAVORS REJECT
6 Supports, 7 Opposes, 1 Abstain - Argean (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add the following question in section 7 (Other proposals) "What should the demonym(s) used to refer to North Macedonia be?"

  • Option A: The demonym(s) used to refer to North Macedonia should be North Macedonian only
  • Option B: The demonym(s) used to refer to North Macedonia should be Macedonian only
  • Option C: The demonym(s) used to refer to North Macedonia should be both North Macedonian and Macedonian
  • Option D: The demonym(s) used to refer to North Macedonia should be Macedonian for now, but it should be reviewed in the future

Survey for proposal #8

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal #9

RESULT: REJECTED
4 Supports, 8 Opposes - Argean (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Include background information in the lead of each section. This will be positioned under the question and above the listed options and shall read:

For section 2:
Article 1.3.b. of the Prespa Agreement defines the nationality as Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. The official position of the government of North Macedonia is that its citizens should continue to be called "Macedonians," not "North Macedonians." The official position of the government of Greece is unknown as of *current date*. It is not clear whether international organizations will use both Macedonian (s) and citizen(s) of the Republic of North Macedonia or prefer one over the other.

Before the official change of the state name on 12 February 2019, most international media referred to the nationality as 'Macedonian(s)'.

After 12 February 2019 international media referred to the nationality as follows:

Media reports that use the term "Macedonian": (list with WP:RS)

Media reports that use the term "North Macedonian": (list with WP:RS)
For section 3:
Article 1.3.f. of the Prespa Agreement states that the adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities shall be in line with the official name or its short name, that is, of the Republic of North Macedonia or of North Macedonia. Outside of the Prespa Agreement, as of *current date* the governments of North Macedonia and Greece haven't specified or made any official guidelines concerning this particular adjectival use. It is not clear how international organizations will interpret this article.

Before the official change of the state name on 12 February 2019, most international media referred to the state-associated and other public entities as 'Macedonian'.

After 12 February 2019 international media referred to the state-associated and other public entities as follows:

Media reports that use the term "Macedonian": (list with WP:RS)

Media reports that use the term "North Macedonian": (list with WP:RS)

Media reports that use other terms: (list with WP:RS)
For section 4:
Article 7.3. of the Prespa Agreement states that when reference is made to North Macedonia, Macedonian denotes its territory, language, people and their attributes, with their own history, culture, and heritage, distinctly different from those of the Greek Macedonians. Outside of the Prespa Agreement, as of *current date* the governments of North Macedonia and Greece haven't specified or made any official guidelines concerning the adjectival use. It is not clear how international organizations will interpret this article.

Before the official change of the state name on 12 February 2019, most international media used the adjective 'Macedonian' when referring to non-state entities from the Republic of Macedonia.

After 12 February 2019 international media used the following adjectives to refer to non-state entities as follows:

Media reports that use the term "Macedonian": (list with WP:RS)

Media reports that use the term "North Macedonian": (list with WP:RS)

Media reports that use other terms: (list with WP:RS)
For section 5:
Upon entry of the Prespa Agreement (Article 1.7) 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 North Macedonia in any official context.

Survey for proposal #9

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rewording of Section 1 (IF proposal #1 & #2 pass)

It has been previously stated that section 1 needs re-wording above, here is one option: - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Just 2 minutes of difference :P. I cannot say that talk pages make cooperative editing easy. --Despotak (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I support the proposal below. —Michail (blah) 13:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)



"What should be the entry for "Republic of Macedonia"/"North Macedonia"?"

  • Option A: It should be "North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe"
  • Option B: It should be "Republic of Macedonia, now Republic of North Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe"

Additionally, the following four entries are in the first section of the Macedonia disambiguation page (Macedonia most commonly refers to):

Macedonia (ancient kingdom) {"North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia"}-Proposal #1's Oppose/Support outcome dependent variable
Macedonia (region) Macedonia (Greece)

What should the order of these items be?

Please list the order of each item following your choice of Option A/B as:
#1 foo1, #2 foo2, #3 foo3, #4 foo4.


Then survey, discussion, etc...

HELP (I want to take part but I don't understand how this page works...)

I am sorry to create a section for this only. I can erase it after. But I went through it all and I still don't get where and how to vote for the options. My opinion is the following basically:

I think we have to accept that it is very clear that the ethnicity of the slavic speaking residents of North Macedonian is Macedonian (it is in the Prespa Agreement and is generalized use). But that is only one of the ethnicities in North Macedonia. Therefore the denonym for the whole country cannot be Macedonian. There is a very strong precedent in the Balkans with Bosniak / Bosnian and another with Kosovar / Kosovan. Also North Macedonian is a very natural way of referring to things relative to North Macedonia (South Sudanese, South Korean, South African). — Preceding unsigned comment added by APG1984 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or North Macedonian (short)
   2. Government organizations: X of North Macedonia (official) or North Macedonian X (more natural)
   3. Demonym for the country: North Macedonian (North Macedonian Ministry etc.)
   4. Language, ethnicity, culture etc. of that ethnic group: Macedonian

Please help:)--APG1984 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is still a draft right now, the details are in the final phases of being fleshed out/voted upon. At 18:00 UTC today we will start voting on the ACTUAL poll, and debating the options as well.
The inclusion of your 3. is being discussed right now in #Proposal #8. The inclusion of your two options in 2. is already the case, after 18:00 you can vote on them here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. The same with your choice for 4. For 1., "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" is currently not going to be an option to be voted upon after 18:00 (North Macedonian will though). It was discussed earlier, and we narrowed it down to just "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian". I hope that helps, feel free to Support or Oppose the Proposals above, if you choose to. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought the deadline was 1800! Why close it 2 h before. Id like to support prop 8. I think we should really discuss the denonym north macedonian. We cant not have this discussion imo. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeryion (talk • contribs) 17:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Azeryion: Just add your votes in, this should have been advertised earlier, but it was all kind of done at the last moment so I think you will be forgiven for missing that particular notice. Some time is needed to do the edits to the RfC page, but unfortunately, I won't be available now to do them. If anyone questions why you should be allowed to add your votes in after the discussions have been closed, just cite my edit to you here. - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rewording for section "Disambiguation"

In case both proposal #1 and proposal #2 are up-voted, I propose the following format and rewording. --Despotak (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • This proposal assumes that proposal #1 will be put as an open question as well.

Disambiguation

To protect the disambiguation page of Macedonia from pointless edit wars, what is your opinion on the order and explanatory text of the terms in the "...most commonly refers to" section should appears? Please define both the order and the explanatory text that follows them.

Since there are 24 permutations, we will add the options that gather sufficient support as the RCF procedure continues.

Survey

Discussion

  • In case of proposal #1 being explicitly for the form of the North Macedonia entry, then I propose 2 independent sections like:

Disambiguation

Form and explanatory text

"What should the form and explanatory text for the modern country on the disambiguation page of Macedonia be?"

  • Option A: It should be "North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe"
  • Option B: It should be "Republic of Macedonia, now Republic of North Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe"
Survey
Discussion

Order

"What should the order of the terms in the "...most commonly refers to" section on the disambiguation page of Macedonia be?

Since there are 24 permutations, we will add the options that gather sufficient support as the RCF procedure continues.

Survey
Discussion

Discussion

-Too complicated, we don't need 3 separate surveys for this. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

:( It wasn't 3 surveys. It was two different versions. One combines proposal #1 and #2 into one single open question, the other keeps them totally separated --Despotak (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I see that now, just not having as much time to see through this stuff properly right now as much as I would like. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/Archive_3&oldid=1143724272"