User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/MOSMAC3

Alternatives to "former Yugoslav"
Such phrases as "once part of Yugoslavia" should be mentioned. They contain the same factual content as "former Yugoslav" and are less abrasive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You may also wish to quote By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called.


 * I second the above although we should also talke a look at the self-identification proposals in Naming conventions (identity) Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 05:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Corpora
is primary topic ...as established through investigation of English-language corpora outside Wikipedia.

That is one investigation, I wouldn't include it as a fact so it's only a rationale for A). Many of the corpora used were news and other reference works biased towards countries (i.e: not having the need for disambiguation). The counter argument in B) and C) would be that in corpora where disambiguation is of importance, primary topic is not apparent. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 05:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe include the thorough data in subfolders like MOSMAC3/an analysis of corpora ... MOSMAC3/an analysis of Google results ...just a thought. It would put the weight out of the footnotes. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 05:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Where I mention "corpora", it's general-purpose English linguistic corpora that attempt to give a representative sample of the totality of English speech and writing across a multitude of different text types and registers, so what it measures is the factor of "common usage". Both academic discourse and journalistic discourse are represented in them. It just so happens that a large portion of the instances where Macedonia was mentioned in these corpora cam from their journalistic parts. This mirrors what contexts our readers are most likely to come across the term Macedonia out in real life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

References at Greece
Don't want to be secretive. This might not be the best time, but here is what I had in mind: Proposal:
 * There are as of now three references to cover:
 * No new references to the country introduced without a very good reason (shouldn't be needed since Greece is the subject of the article, any new occurrences will only complicate the issue more)
 * 1) In the lead: Republic of Macedonia used with an obligatory clarifying sentence in the likes of "Republic of Macedonia, that Greece[/UN] recognizes provisionally as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" (the last two unlinked). That doesn't interfere with Wikipedia naming policy and actually is conforming to NPOV
 * 2) In the map: "Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" in full, or "Macedonia (FYROM)" or "FYR Macedonia" or "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (probably the first, some tweaking with the linked part and the size of the fonts)
 * 3) In the dispute mention: "dispute with the Republic of Macedonia over its constitutional name" (unlinked) or some other way like "...dispute with the independent Republic of Macedonia, formerly part of Yugoslavia" (pipe-linked as shown) or "Macedonia, a former Yugoslav republic" (unlinked or pipe-linked as shown, "republic" with no capital "R") or something else descriptive of the issue, with no prescribed name used.

Those are my first thoughts, I will think them through... Shadow mor ph ^"^ 20:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable, I'm afraid. Both in the lead and in the map, the political relations between the two countries are completely irrelevant. Those passages are purely about the geographic facts. The one and only reason we use any name there is to establish what geographical unit we are talking about, and for that purpose we will use exactly the same name as everywhere else, and only that. Mentioning anything about the naming dispute in those contexts would serve no other purpose than to symbolically bow down before the Greek "sensitivities", and we won't do that. The only place where the Greek stance and "recognition" play any role at all is the "foreign relations" section, where the naming issue is already appropriately mentioned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To give a parallel: Lebanon does not diplomatically recognise Israel. Nevertheless, the lead of our article on Lebanon, in the corresponding sentence where its geographical situation is described by enumerating its neighbours, simply says that Lebanon "borders with Israel". Nothing about what Lebanon does or does not recognise about that other state; it's just about noting the simple geographical fact that they border with each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * hmmm, I understand the point about #1. However spelling out FYROM at the top will spare us with spelling it or using it again to disambiguate it elsewhere on the article. Especially in #2, the map, has a disambiguation issue since there is a border with Macedonia, the Greek region. Ironically in #3 is where FYROM should not be used but rather the constitutional name, since that is the object of the dispute. The fact that fYROM is the term by which the UN recognizes the country can also be mentioned. Shadow mor ph ^"^ 01:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC) somewhere. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 01:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't use "f.Y." to disambiguate anything, so why would spelling it out in the beginning help save anything further down? At #2, yes, there is a disambiguation issue: that is precisely why we are using "Republic of" there, rather than plain "Macedonia", and that's perfectly sufficient. #3 can be tweaked, no problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll think it over but I find my proposals realistic and by the 'WP:' books. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)