Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 30

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2022
Change request: "(Macedonia before February 2019)" to "(Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia before February 2019).

Reason: North Macedonia was never officially recognised as "Macedonia", it was recognised as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" by the United Nations. It is therefore factually incorrect to claim that North Macedonia was known as "Macedonia" before Feb. 2019. Odysseas2001 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see MOS:MAC. This topic has been discussed at length and you would need to seek consensus to make this change. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't really related to MOS:MAC. It was a separate discussion on this page. --Antondimak (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it’s certainly been codified in this guideline. See In historical contexts referring to events between 1992 and 2019, Wikipedia articles will continue to refer to the country by its then-current official name, i.e. "(Republic of) Macedonia"…The term former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or any of its abbreviations will not be used. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have red that guideline and understand it, but its "then current official name" was not "(Republic of) Macedonia" and this correction does not refer "to events between 1992 and 2019", as it is not a reference to an event. And so by interpreting that guideline word for word, this edit request is I think justifiable. Odysseas2001 (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, you happen to be wrong. "Republic of Macedonia" was in fact its official name before 2019. A state's official name is, by definition, the name it defines for itself. Recognition by third parties plays no role whatsoever in that. And not only was that its official name, it was also the only name it ever had. No third party – certainly not the UN or other international organizations – ever claimed that its name was something other than "Republic of Macedonia". What the UN did was not using a different name, but simply a policy of avoiding to use its name. It used a conventionalized circumlocution instead, one that the UN itself was always careful to describe as not a name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is where you happen to be extremely and dangerously wrong. The UN, EU, OECD, and IMF all, prior to 2019, referred to North Macedonia as FYROM, not as the "Republic of Macedonia". And the UN did not avoid using the acronym in its proceedings or documents. You will find a litany of UN proceedings using... FYROM, even through that was a "provisional name" that still means it was a name for the time being. And sure, North Macedonia can technically call itself whatever it wishes, but the caveat is that when a naming convention is this divisive, at the very least the correction should state that North Macedonia was known as: "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) or the Republic of North Macedonia prior to 2019".
 * It is a totally mute point to claim that FYROM was not the name of the country that then acceded to the name of North Macedonia... it says it in the very agreement that FYROM signed with Greece to settle the naming dispute (Art 1.7 Prespa Agreement, 2019). Here both the terms FYROM and Republic of Macedonia are considered, ergo, it is very incorrect to claim that the only name formerly used for present-day North Macedonia was the Republic of Macedonia. This distinction should be made clear in the article. Odysseas2001 (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Odysseas2001 Hello. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) was never actually the official name of the country. It was only a provisional reference. Some international organizations decided to adopt that reference. On top of that, the UN makes it clear on their website that it's not within their authority to recognize states or governments. Also your edit request appears to be controversial and judging by the replies here, there is no consensus for this change, which is something that you should have considered before making the request. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @StephenMacky1 Hello. Appreciated, I've clarified my view on the matter in an above response. True, every country can call itself whatever it pleases, but, in diplomatic relations there have to be some established norms, the most basic of which is what you call your counterpart. This is why I insist on the point of international organisations.
 * The article could be rephrased as: North Macedonia (formerly self-styled as the Republic of Macedonia and also recognised as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). I know it's a mouthful, but I think precision is of the essence here. Then again, I didn't make this request knowing how little or how much consensus I would get for it, so I don't quite get what you mean. Odysseas2001 (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an international diplomatic organisation, and does not follow their conventions. Instead, we have Naming conventions (Macedonia) as linked above. Regarding the suggestion, if a point needs to be that tortuously written to be included, it doesn't belong in the lead. CMD (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I realise it's not smooth - but neither is this issue. Thanks for taking the time to consider this issue. I get it. Odysseas2001 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"TFYRM" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect TFYRM and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

"TFYR" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect TFYR and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Macedonians: 54.21% Albanians: 29.52%
UPDATE General population:

The Albanians in North Macedonia are the second largest ethnic group, from 2,097,319 total population (including diaspora) in the 2021 census 29.52%, or 619,187 are Albanians.

Во вкупно попишаното население, 54.21 % се изјасниле како Македонци, 29.52 % како Албанци, 3.98 % како Турци, 2.34 % како Роми, 1.18 % како Срби, 0.87 % како Бошњаци и 0.44 % како Власи.

https://www.stat.gov.mk/PrikaziSoopstenie.aspx?rbrtxt=146 TruthMustBeTold1 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but that's not an update. That data is for the total number of people who participated in the census, diaspora included, as you have acknowledged as well. As for the resident population, the numbers are already included in the article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes but diaspora includes people who work abroad for 3 - 2- 1 months and then return home, with impossibility to participated in person, they participated online in the census, like i did. TruthMustBeTold1 (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Incorrect, it is for individuals who have lived outside the country for at least one year (i.e. includes people who haven't lived there for decades). As stated by the head of the State Statistical Office, the only valid category in the census is the residential population. -- Local hero talk 18:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

When i participated online in this census i was in swiss, now i live and work in North Macedonia, but according to your logic i’m part of diaspora? TruthMustBeTold1 (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC) Most probably you lie. But it is not important, you were not there at the moment of the census in 2021. Maybe you returned, but maybe somebody else left MK?


 * Most probably you lie. But it is not important, you were not there at the moment of the census in 2021. Maybe you returned, but maybe somebody else left MK? 91.226.20.126 (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

North Macedonia
North Macedonia is in southwestern Europe!!! 2603:6080:A502:1C93:E1F1:DF35:625B:D0A8 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Not as usually defined. AnonMoos (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, the Balkan Peninsula (including North Macedonia) and the Apennine Peninsula are South Europe, the Iberian Peninsula is Southwest Europe, and North Caucasus is Southeast Europe. Apcbg (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Official Language
One question: Why Albanian and Macedonian languages are listed as official? Why no one mentioned that the language spoken is 90% match with BULGARIAN and original language of the land? Absolutely unacceptable! "Macedonian" is a Dialect of Bulgarian 158.58.199.130 (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You need to complain to Horace Lunt's gravestone or similar, since it's all water under the bridge now. As they say, A language is a dialect with an army and navy... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to note that the dialect in question has an army but no navy :-) Apcbg (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, then you can go with Randolph Quirk's version, "A language is a dialect with an army and a flag"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Why, I might even go with just the flag alone :-) Best, Apcbg (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vipz (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

North or Northern
The word Северна/Severna denotes an adjective. Savasampion (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We use the WP:COMMONNAME on Wikipedia, which is in this case North Macedonia. -Vipz (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Chronology edit request
In the intro section, please change "(Macedonia before February 2019)" to "(Macedonia between 1944 and 2019)" taking into account:


 * 1944 is the year the modern state was established, shown on the info box, and also important as it is recent and offers perspective (WWII, just 31 after the Balkan Wars etc)


 * this article is about the state, not a region


 * February is unnecessary detail for the first sentence; could have been relevant in 2020 or 2021 — not anymore and in the following years. Aethalides 07:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the date of establishment is provided in the infobox, I think it would be confusing and imply that it went by a different name before 1944. However, I will remove "February". Thanks! ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 14:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It did have a different name before 1944, it was called Vardarska Banovina. "Macedonia" carried pro-Bulgarian connotations which the Yugoslavian authorities tried to contain. Antondimak (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for clarifying that! ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 14:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The modern state wasn't established in 1944, but 1991. It was a province then, which already existed before, it just changed its name and structure. I think the parenthesis itself is unnecessary and intrusive, and I'm not sure this helps. Antondimak (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think that sentence could be rewritten for clarification, but I don't think there is any harm in adding this (already done). ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 14:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Introductory part clutter
Is it of utmost importance to mention in the second sentence that North Macedonia is one of the successor states of Yugoslavia? This is in contrast to other successor states' introductory parts on Wikipedia. It may somehow wrongly suggest as if North Macedonia's independence is a special case as compared to other ex-Yugoslav states. Even more, there's no similar mentioning in Montenegro's introduction, although it became independent years later.

Second thing, the following part "The country became a member of the United Nations in April 1993, but as a result of a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia", it was admitted under the provisional description "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (abbreviated as "FYR Macedonia" or "FYROM")" is not entirely correct. Under UN, there were no abbreviations allowed; and alphabetically the country was always positioned according to the "t" letter of the provisional name. "FYR Macedonia" and "FYROM", or even other derivations were only used by some organizations. I find it absolutely unnecessary to mention any abbreviations as it would entail saying that other organizations or countries continued to refer to the country under its constitutional name - a rather complex matter for the introductory part.

I would suggest a more clutter-free introduction as follows:

"...which it remained until its peaceful secession in 1991. As a result of a dispute over its name with Greece, the United Nations had used a provisional reference until 2019, when the parties signed the Prespa agreement."

The UN membership is inferred implicitly in the above example, and confirmed in the last existing paragraph. Klukajdrvec (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the first paragraph should be decluttered. The second sentence is already covered in the third paragraph, where I also think "Macedonia before 2019" could be integrated with proper context. Historical names of the country and succession facts are increasingly irrelevant as more time passes on (i.e. they don't belong to the very first introductory paragraph). -Vipz (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the idea, but I have some nitpicks.
 * The reason the current paragraph mentions the year North Macedonia joined the UN is that it's unsuccessfully trying to explain that there was a two-year delay due to the dispute, with it entering using a provisional name as a compromise. That's partly the reason why the UN is mentioned at all in the introductory section.
 * The UN wasn't the only international organisation using the provisional description. It was used my most international organisations, especially those in which Greece was a member (and therefore pretty much all global and European inter-state organisations).
 * The Prespa agreement was signed in 2018, and came into force officially in early 2019. "Until" can be both inclusive and exclusive to the year mentioned, so mentioning 2018 should solve the problem.
 * I would suggest something like: "...which it remained until its peaceful secession in 1991. As a result of a dispute over its name with Greece, international organisations referred to the country using a provisional reference until 2018, when the parties signed the Prespa agreement."
 * I also agree with Vipz, and this should also remove the need for that intrusive parenthesis in the lede. The specific former names of the country (FYROM, Macedonia, etc.) are explained further down in the article and in the linked article about the dispute, and are gradually becoming more irrelevant. Antondimak (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right about the year. But bear in mind that, while the Prespa Agreement was signed in 2018, the actual implementation on the agreed finished in 2019, thus UN started using the new name in 2019. In order to improve my example above:
 * "...which it remained until its peaceful secession in 1991. As a result of a dispute over its name with Greece, the United Nations had used a provisional reference until 2019, i.e. after the parties signed the Prespa agreement."
 * I agree that most international organizations followed the UN reference name, or a derivative. However, for a proper introduction this would entail mentioning that most of the countries, including 4/5 UN Sec Council members used the previous constitutional name. That's why I thought mentioning the UN only would be relevant enough in the context of the independence process. Klukajdrvec (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this problem with the year is solved by considering "until" to be exclusive in this case, and the sentence is simpler that way.
 * Countries were divided, but the vast majority of international organisation used the reference, which is why I think this is better. It's not like the UN has any specific authority to "recognise" countries' names anyway. Antondimak (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the proposed changes in this thread. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Please remove or change - Balkan Wars Boundaries cleanup.jpg
It adds a lot of empty space on the article between paragraphs and thus should be removed or changed. Ty. —  Sadko  (words are wind)  05:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2023
Change BC to BCE and AD to CE Riley V1.2 (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: MOS:ERA does not require it. -- Local hero talk 08:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected
In the intro, please add that North Macedonia is located in the Balkan peninsula. 2600:100C:A21C:E44E:9CFD:64F3:D2BB:A3AA (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed this along other introductory clutter per discussion right above this section. 'Southeast Europe' is a more formal name for this region than 'Balkan Peninsula'. -Vipz (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Naming question
Do we currently consider North Macedonia to be the name of the country that came into existance in 1991, and thus North Macedonia and North Macedonian to be the proper way to refer to that country and its residents and nationals at all points from 1991 on? My largest concern is in regards to emigration categories, and since pre-1991 emigrants belong in the Yugoslavia or early country categories, I only need to figure out about 1991 on for that purpose. I am wondering a little if we had a writer who lived in modern North Macedonia from 1945 until and early death in 1985, would it still be best to call that person a North Macedonian writer?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good question. There was no "North Macedonia" before the Prespa Agreement, so a writer who died in 1985 was not a North Macedonian writer. Calling him a North Macedonian writer would be anachronistic and misleading. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * We use Thai people and its subcategories to transcend the 1939 rename of Siam to Thailand. Generally when name changes do not effect the structure of a country or its borders we do not build categories to distinguish based on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Thai people are an ethnic group. They, as an ethnic group, were called "Thai" even when Thailand was called Siam. North Macedonians are not an ethnic group but citizens/nationals of North Macedonia. Before North Macedonia got renamed, there were no "North Macedonians". The Slavic ethnic group was called "Macedonian" before the Prespa Agrement, and continues to be called so. However, I also see your point, so maybe someone with more knowledge on the matter of how people from today's North Macedonia are named throught Wiki could help. Maybe User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has sth better to say. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The ethnic group is generally referred to as Tai and are not one and the same as the nationals of Thailand. the various categories such as Thai writers are using the term to refer to nationals of Thailand without regard to what ethnicity they may be. We would not exclude someone of Chinese ethnicity, or a Malay writer from the south of Thailand from the category, even if they died before the adoption of the current name of the country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * To get back to the North Macedonia question specifically, we would assume that Category:North Macedonia writers would be a subcat of Category:North Macedonia people for writers. Petar Andonovski is an article that opens by saying after giving his birth info in paretheses that the subject is "is a writer from North Macedonia". The only category the article is in is Category:Macedonian writers, which if it is meant to cover something other than writers who are nationals of the place currently called North Macedonia is not a category that putting Andonovski in is supported at all by the category contents. Do we want a Macedonian writers category that covers the Macedonian ethnic group without regards to what country such writers were nationals of, or do we want Category:North Macedonia writers to be the only so named category? I am torn as to whether it is best for Macedonian writers to become North Macedonian writers or to start a new North Macedonia writers category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On further review Macedonian writers contains many entries on people who were not even remotely connected to North Macedonia. I will create a new category. For now I will only apply it to people alive and in North Macedonia after 2018.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Macedonian" is the correct designation both of the ethnicity (of the majority population of this country, at least since the 20th century), and of the nationality of this country (after 1945, and both before and after the 2019 renaming). Incidentally, it is of course also the designation of the language, so for a writer who (presumably) belongs to the Macedonian ethnos, is a citizen of (North) Macedonia, and writes in Macedonian, "Macedonian writer" is a correct designation in three ways at once. For your earlier example of somebody who lived between 1945 and 1985, you'd probably classify them as a "Yugoslav writer" if you go by nationality (which I suppose our categories usually do). Also personally I wouldn't mind using the narrower category retroactively too – just as I guess "Ukrainian writers" also contains people who lived during the Soviet era and died before 1990. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, it would be strange to not categorize Kočo Racin as a Macedonian writer, despite him dying decades before 1991. This newly-created should just be redirected to the existing Macedonian writers category. -- Local hero  talk 05:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the difficulty of many Balkan issues
I'll go ahead and note this here: the current sourced sentence in the naming section


 * The name Macedonia was largely forgotten during the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires...

was at least inaccurate during the existence of the theme of Macedonia. If we keep the part of the sentence about the Byzantine Empire, we have to acknowledge and link to the theme. Sure, it's fine to remove it if the discussion is limited to the Ottoman Empire instead. — Llywelyn II   21:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The "Theme of Macedonia" was part of today's Bulgaria and Greece. The classic definition of Macedonia (capital at Pella etc) was of interest only to a few antiquarians at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I still think it should be mentioned that it was used to refer to a mostly different area, instead of forgotten. --Antondimak (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ismail Strazimiri
Ismail Strazimiri is listed in Category:Albanians in North Macedonia yet he died in 1943. I think we can confidently say he does not belong in such a category. Even if we were to accept that this category can cover people who were resident in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia within Yugoslavia, I think going back before that was formed in 1944 is a total misuse of the term. Up until the German invasion in 1941, the area of modern North Macedonia and some adjacent areas now in Kosovo and Yugoslavia were in Vardar Banovina. I am going to move Strazimiri into the Albanians in Yugoslavia cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thank you for raising the issue. I agree that some people have been anachronistically placed in such categories, ex. people being put in North Macedonia's municipalities' categories despite them having lived before the existence of North Macedonia. I've been removing people from such categories, because they should apply only for people in the contemporary period. Just letting you know that there still might be such an anachronism. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pasting reply from that talkpage: The point of that category is to place Strazimiri alongside other Albanians from the present-day territory of N Macedonia. I understand "North Macedonia" sounds anachronistic but the point is to categorize him among Albanian Macedonians. -- Local hero talk 20:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I really think we should created Category:Albanian in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia or alternatively agree to place anyone who was not at least alive from 1991 on in Category:Albanians in Yugoslavia alone and not in any Macedonia categories. Movement in Yugoslavia was not restricted, and many people moved around it, especially between Kosovo and Macedonia, so there are strong arguments against ignoring its existence in categories. We need to avoid anachronism and not imposed categories based on present names and political conditions on the past. There are times when unified names justify applying names on the past that would not have been used at the time, but in this case I think we need to avoid stretching names too far back. If an ethnic Albanian lived from 1870-1910 the whole time within the present boundaries of North Macedonia, it would still not make sense to describe such a person as having been in North Macedonia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about it being anachronistic, but it becomes complicated with categories. For example, as stated above, he's removed such anachronistic categories, including from an article I wrote Nace Dimov. The category was "Category:People from Čaška Municipality". Of course Dimov died way before there was such a municipality, but I added this category because there was no "People from Papradište" category. Let's say that category did exist... then it would probably be a subcat under "People from Čaška Municipality" which then again becomes an anachronism.
 * I'm fine with using "Albanians in Yugoslavia" as you suggest, but from my experience these anachronistic categorizations are very common (ex: Nephon II of Constantinople categorized in Category:Albanian people of Greek descent). -- Local hero talk 03:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no inherent reason why we cannot have seperate categories for people of an ethnic group, and for people who lived in a particular country. The "Foo people of Booian descent" are meant for cases where Foo means a particular country. We should not apply it to people who lived at a time when there was no Foo country. So Albanina people of x descent categories should only exist for those who lived after the forming of Albanian in the 1910s. Someone who lived in the Ottoman Empire should be in the People from the Ottoman Empire of Boo descent cats. We currently have Category:People from the Ottoman Empire of Albanian descent, Category:Albanians in the Ottoman Empire and Category:Albanian people in the Ottoman Empire. This is clearly only at most 2 categories. Oh, it gets worse, we also have Category:Albanians from the Ottoman Empire that is a sub-cat of Category:People from the Ottoman Empire by ethnicity which is a parent to the People from the Ottoman Empire by ethnic or national descent cat. We do not seem to have either Category:Macedonians from the Ottoman Empire or Category:People from the Ottoman Empire of Macedonian descent. I can not state how much we are really following good principals in these categories. Clearly we should only have 2 Albanian categories at most, and I would ask 2 questions. 1-with much of the Albanian lands in the Ottoman Empire for several centuries, does it make sense to seperate descent and not descent cats? With American people of Albanian descent they are clearly in a state of being removed from the ethnic homeland, this is not the case for Albanians in the Ottoman Empire. The other issues that relates to this is, if we have someone in the Ottoman Empire who for whatever reason we are not comfortable saying they are in fact "Albanian", is their ethnicity at all defining. The big problem is that some category names were developed for cases like the United States and people from groups that immigrated to the US from elsewhere. They do not work easily in Eastern Europe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no problem if you'd like to do this. I do believe that the main use for readers of Category:Albanians in North Macedonia is to locate articles for individuals of Albanian descent who hail/hailed from what is now N Macedonia, regardless of the era. Doing as you propose would make it more difficult to do that, but on the other hand it would also eliminate the anachronism. -- Local hero talk 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If they are in this category they need to be "Albanian" not just "Albanian descent", period. Determining the difference is at times hard. However we need clear evidence that they would self-identify and be identified by others as being ethnically Albanian. This is something more than just "descent".John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2023
In the photos section, I see it says "North Macedonia is located in North Macedonia" It's supposed to say located in Europe. Thought it was funny :) 69.117.68.127 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Where exactly? We don't have a photos section in this article, and nowhere in the article does "North Macedonia is located in North Macedonia" exist. None of the 3 instances of "located" match either Cannolis (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually, the four photos immediately following the text "The country has four national parks:" (in the Biodiversity subsection) each have the automatically-generated text "North Macedonia is located in North Macedonia" associated with them in the HTML output (though this wording is not in the article source). It may not be visible in all browsers, but it's visible in the browser I'm using right now, and apparently also that used by 69.117.68.127... AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a general bug with the location map templates, which are generating alt text pulling this page name and the name of the template (PAGE NAME is located in TEMPLATE COUNTRY). It usually pulls from the  field, but I tried filling that in and it forces the label to appear on the map which that table is not happy with. CMD (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2023
Under Politics > Foreign relations, the following sentence is written:

"North Macedonia is a member of the following international and regional organisations:[185] IMF (since 1992), WHO (since 1993), EBRD (since 1993), Central European Initiative (since 1993), Council of Europe (since 1995), OSCE (since 1995), SECI (since 1996), La Francophonie (since 2001), WTO (since 2003), CEFTA (since 2006), NATO (since 2020)."

Prior to "NATO," there should be an "and" because it is the last item in a list.

Change the previous sentence to:

"North Macedonia is a member of the following international and regional organisations:[185] IMF (since 1992), WHO (since 1993), EBRD (since 1993), Central European Initiative (since 1993), Council of Europe (since 1995), OSCE (since 1995), SECI (since 1996), La Francophonie (since 2001), WTO (since 2003), CEFTA (since 2006), and NATO (since 2020)."

Unkeptsecrets (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

✅ Xan747 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2023
Add coordinates: Wiki-ircecho (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Recoil16 (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2023 Population Density
Population density is left at the number that was calculated using the 2002 census results. Resident population now is >> 1,836,713. so: 1,836,713 people / 25,713 km sq = 71.4 people/km sq, not 80.1 people/km sq as is now stated.

I think that GDP per capita and similar per capita statistics are not updated. 130.92.211.116 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Total area re-measurement
According to the most recent re-measurement, the country's total area published by the State Statistical Office is 25,436 km2, which is somewhat lower than the previously measured 25,713 km2. This should be changed in the article's infobox and the first sentence of the Geography section. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)