User:Radjenef/Proposal G

This page isn't a part of and probably won't affect the centralized discussion going on in. If you happened to stumble upon this page and feel like supporting Proposal G, feel free to add your endorsement at the bottom.

Why I think this proposal shouldn't have been left out
Proposal G used to be one of the options available in. The original agreement was to remove proposals that were only supported by one editor or less. Two users indicated this proposal as their first choice, yet the proposal was still removed, causing it not to be considered by the wider community. The rationale behind this, was a unanimous ruling by the three referees that the proposal didn't comply with wikipedia policies. I tried explaining to them that Proposal G does include a policy rationale, that they obviously disagree with that rationale, and that their POV on the interpretation of policy is not necessarily that of the community. If Proposal G were included, then there's a chance the community might agree with me that it doesn't "trump policy" and that the policy rationale is valid. All I ever wanted, was to ensure that the proposal got a fair chance of being considered by the wider community. To that effect, I requested a formal clarification from ArbCom. Though this didn't really lead anywhere, one of the arbitrators did notice that a wider audience might have been able to come up with new (policy-based) arguments for the proposal. As long as this centralized discussion prevented one of the important proposals from being considered by the wider community, I reserve the right to consider it to be of dubious credibility and of questionable validity. I guess we'll never know what might have happened... --Radjenef (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal G: the UN provisional solution

 * Macedonia is the disambiguation page.
 * former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is the article about the country.
 * Republic of Macedonia redirects to former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Rationale

 * Same rationale for putting the disambiguation page under the simple title as for [B]
 * "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is an acceptable disambiguator because it is the term used by most international organisations, and more commonly used than the shorter formal name "Republic of Macedonia" according to a Google search.
 * This is the English Wikipedia, not the Simple Wikipedia, so we should not sacrifice accuracy or policy for the sake of simplicity.

Envisaged impact on readers

 * Same impact as [B].

Compliance with Wikipedia policy

 * Compliant with WP:DAB (use simple title for disambiguation page) and WP:PRECISION (prefer precisely specified names when ambiguity exists) under the premise that there is no clear "primary topic".
 * Compliant with WP:DAB suggestion that "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic"
 * Compliant with WP:NC (WP:NCCN to be more precise), by using the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.
 * Compliant with WP:NCON by using the most common English-language equivalent (since the name is disputed by two jurisdictions).
 * The clause that the title is not uncommon is supported by three criteria found in WP:NCON, a Google search, usage by organisations (e.g. UN), usage by other international bodies.

Why is this better than the status quo?
The title of the country article would be unambiguous. In no circumstance would any reader find himself directed to an article they didn't seek for. This version would be best adhering to wikipedia policies of common use, while at the same time still using the provisional reference that the country itself agreed to use (under the 1995 interim accord) as official appellation in it's relations with the UN and most other international organizations.

Arguments against Proposal G

 * "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is neither the self-identifying term nor the term most commonly used in English, and therefore against both sets of criteria outlined in WP:NCON.
 * As a disambiguator, "former Yugoslav Republic of" is unnecessary, because even where disambiguation is needed there are shorter and less cumbersome alternatives, such as "Republic of"; using an unnecessarily long term is against best practice as described in WP:DAB and WP:PRECISION.
 * As a provisional reference, it is likely not to be stable in the medium term.
 * Using this term may be perceived as taking sides in favour of the Greek POV.
 * This proposal violates WP:NPOV's requirement to use "the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources".
 * This proposal gives a wrong impression to the reader that Wikipedia's editorial voice is governed by the naming conventions of a specific organisation (the UN); that comes as challenging WP:NPOV in a way. That is more apparent since the provisional reference was agreed as a consequence of the naming dispute rather than for disambiguation purposes - unlike some other descriptive terms like e.g. Macedonia (Republic) that is used by other neutral sources.

Users who endorse Proposal G

 * This proposal recognises that there is no primary topic for the term "Macedonia", as demonstrated by reliable sources in the evidence section and according to WP:DISAMBIG which states that: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic". By recognising no primacy of topic, we avoid giving undue weight to any specific POV. It is the name under which the Republic de facto self-identifies, in the form of its UN official appellation . It is the most commonly used of the non-ambiguous terms, appearing far more frequently than the term "Republic of Macedonia", as is evidenced by a google search . Finally, it is the name most commonly used by international organizations. --Radjenef (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)