Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Archive 2

Macedonia 2: Motion
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that: The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Decision over name use
Ποιος αποφάσισε οτι παντου θα χρησιμοποιείται το Republic of Macedonia και τίποτα άλλο; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagr7 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please use English in English Wikipedia. As to your question (about who has decided the use of "Republic of Macedonia"), the answer is that the Wikipedia community has decided it through thorough discussions, described in this very project page Naming conventions (Macedonia): This guideline is a result of a centralised discussion process instigated by the Arbitration Committee following the "Macedonia 2" case.... So please accept Wikipedia rules and stop your disruptions to Balkans Campaign (World War II). --T*U (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Official end of Macedonian name dispute
The Greek parliament voted today to approve the name "Republic of North Macedonia", which had already been conditionally accepted by the Macedonian parliament. This means the Republic of Macedonia is now officially the Republic of North Macedonia, with the short form North Macedonia. Macedonia and Greece: Vote settles 27-year name dispute - BBC News Does this change what we should be doing on Wikipedia? Robminchin (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, people are just about to start a renaming proposal for the main article on Talk:Republic of Macedonia, and probably we'll also have a larger RfC about what to do with references elsewhere, but the consensus the other day when these developments began was that we shouldn't hurry too much and rather take our time deciding and observing how common usage in English reacts to the change. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that a renaming proposal for the main article has now been filed at Talk:Republic of Macedonia. Given that this part of the process is likely to be fairly uncontroversial, I'd like to think that this doesn't contravene the Arbcom injunction of last June, which said that the naming conventions as a whole should only be changed via a larger RfC (30 days and 3 closers and everything). We will still need such a comprehensive RfC to deal with all the likely follow-up issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Time to update the guidelines
Given that the Prespa Agreement has been ratified by both countries and most probably will come into force in just a week's time, I propose that is time to open the discussion about how the naming guidelines should be updated according to the provisions agreed upon in the agreement. My personal opinion is that we should do that in time to prevent the edit warring chaos that I expect to take place when the agreement comes officially into force.

The discussion in Talk:Republic of Macedonia has already highlighted 2 issues that seem to be subject to be challenged immediately from the day that the agreement comes into force (and maybe more issues will eventually appear):
 * 1) Renaming of Republic of Macedonia to either "Republic of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia". There seems to be a majority consensus for "North Macedonia", but we should make that clear.
 * 2) Use of demonyms to describe the people from "North Macedonia". The discussion involves the terms "North Macedonians" and "Macedonians" and I don't think that there is a consensus on that issue. I expect this to become highly problematic, because it will eventually involve a large number of articles that use the term Macedonian as an ethnic or national designation related to the "Republic of Macedonia".

The talk page has already become a mess with many people (including myself) posting the same things again and again in different sections of the page that appear every second day to discuss over the exact same issues that I described previously. I believe that we immediately need an organized RfC to solve these issues before the agreement comes into full force on February the 8th, as expected. Argean (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree.


 * I went back to the discussion from last time to see what questions were asked, but it appears to me that those questions were asked in a particular context and with 10 years of history behind us several of them simply do not need to be reopened. In particular, I see no value in creating a split between different contexts now when we did not create one before.


 * So, assuming the Prespa agreement comes into effect as planned, some questions I would suggest - as a means of sparking discussion - would be:
 * What title should be used for the article currently at Republic of Macedonia?
 * If the article is renamed, how should other articles refer to the Republic of Macedonia,
 * in contexts where other countries would be called by their full official names (currently "Republic of Macedonia")?
 * in contexts where other countries would be called by short or common names (currently "Macedonia")?
 * in contexts where the normal name may be considered ambiguous (currently "Republic of Macedonia")?
 * in contexts specific to the period before the Prespa agreement came into effect (i.e. 1991-2019)?
 * What word or phrase should be used to refer to what we now call the Macedonian ethnic or national group?
 * What word or phrase should be used to refer to what we now call the Macedonian language?
 * What adjective should be used to refer to other things or concepts pertaining to the Republic of Macedonia?


 * To me, the answers to some of these questions are obvious or follow on naturally from other questions, but others are not. Kahastok talk 12:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've participated in this discussion that ended the Macedonians (ethnic group) after years of edit wars. That was back in 2005 (!) and this policy was called Wikipedia: Naming conflict. I'm very interested in the progression of this debate. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * My answers to 's questions would be:
 * Country article: North Macedonia
 * Other articles:
 * Full name: Republic of North Macedonia
 * Common name: North Macedonia
 * Disambiguation: North Macedonia, with Republic of North Macedonia where the first is not enough.
 * Before 2019: current guideline
 * Ethnic group: Macedonian
 * Language: Macedonian
 * Adjective: North Macedonian, except people, who are Macedonian
 * I would say Macedonian is and always will be an ethnicity and language, it is detached from politics, however the name of the country is North Macedonia Danski454 (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Northern Macedonia listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Northern Macedonia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft RFC
As many have said, the time is ripe for the renewal of these guidelines in view of the recent political developments. Let's get the ball rolling. Below is a first draft of guidelines as I would personally like to propose them. Some of these points I believe will be fairly uncontroversial, for others I can imagine counterproposals to be added. Let's collect ideas so we can then present a proper RfC with all serious options to be !voted on.


 * 1) Main article:
 * 2) The main article Republic of Macedonia should be moved to North Macedonia, this being the new official and self-appointed name. As of 8 February, this renaming proposal is already being voted on in a regular RM on the article talkpage; this should be allowed to go ahead and be closed as a regular RM after a week, i.e. around 15 February, by which time the name change is expected to have become effective.
 * 3) [Alternative proposals to be added?]
 * 4) Disambiguation page:
 * 5) The structure of the main disambiguation page Macedonia should remain unchanged for the time being, with a dab link to the country as its first entry, with an updated definition line saying "North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia, a country in Southeast Europe…" (or: "Republic of Macedonia, now Republic of North Macedonia, a country in Southeast Europe"), or similar
 * 6) The disambiguation page Macedonia should be reordered, so that it lists Macedonia (region) first, followed by "North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia", followed by Macedonia (Greece) (and it's subdivisions), followed by Macedonia (ancient kingdom), in the manner of Korea (disambiguation).
 * 7) Northern Macedonia and Southern Macedonia should both redirect to Macedonia (region). A note at the top should specify that  and.
 * 8) [Alternative proposals to be added?]
 * 9) Nationality (as used for instance in the lead of bio articles)
 * 10) The nationality of citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia should, for the time being, continue to be called "Macedonian". According to the Prespa Agreement, the official term for the nationality is stipulated to be "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" (the agreement is vague as to whether this double phrase should always be used together or whether the two are to be used as alternatives). Of course, the full double phrase with the slash is too unwieldy to be used in Wikipedia, so as an adjectival form, only "Macedonian" is suitable. This means no change to the status quo. It remains to be seen whether the natural English adjectival form "North Macedonian" may come into informal use internationally in this sense; if and when that happens, we can follow suit.
 * 11) Macedonian should be used when referring to ethnicity or nationality, but not as the adjectival form of the name of the country. The agreement specifies that adjectival form is "of North Macedonia" and so North Macedonian  a suitable adjectival form and has already began to be used by media sources and organisations. Where MRT 1 was previously  (Macedonian links to Republic of Macedonia), it should now be  or . Examples of adjectival use of  in mainstream sources include.
 * 12) [Alternative proposals to be added?]
 * 13) Language, ethnicity, culture etc
 * 14) The naming of the Macedonian language, the Macedonians (ethnic group) and other topics related to their culture etc. will remain unchanged. A change is neither stipulated by the Prespa Agreement, nor likely to happen in English usage for the time being.
 * 15) [Alternative proposals to be added?]
 * 16) References to the country in other articles, sub-article titles etc.
 * 17) Present-day contexts
 * 18) Like with other countries, the country can be referred to by its short informal name "North Macedonia" in most contexts, or by "Republic of North Macedonia" in contexts where other states would also be referred to by their full formal titles, or with the adjectival form "North Macedonian" where applicable. Since there will be no more disambiguity, no special rules for disambiguating additions will be necessary. But there's no rush. Since the old term "Macedonia" will still be encountered in practice, and may very well continue even to be the dominant form in informal English, there should be no rush changing all references at once.
 * 19) [Alternative proposals to be added?]
 * 20) Historical pre-2019 contexts
 * 21) In historical contexts referring to events or situations between 1992 and 2019, it may be appropriate to continue to refer to the country by its then-valid name "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia", as before, possibly with an addition of "now North Macedonia" or similar, where contextually significant.
 * 22) [Alternative proposals to be added?]

Please comment about additions/modifications/corrections to be made to this draft before we open the real RfC; don't start !voting yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In 5.2 (is that the correct numbering?), there could be a optional guideline where an editor may write something like “North Macedonia (known at the time as the Republic of Macedonia)”… you know, connecting between the old and new names? In 2.1, Republic of North Macedonia is the new official name, and North Macedonia is the new common name. I understand that some people are excited about the move because they hope that the naming dispute can be finally put to rest. --Marianian(talk) 20:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would imagine that 2.2 should be Republic of North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country in Southeast Europe, not Republic of Macedonia, now Republic of North Macedonia, a country in Southeast Europe. Why would the old name go first? --Michail (blah) 20:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the adjectival form of North Macedonia is specified as 'of North Macedonia'. I would assume that per this, the demonym in reference to the state would be North Macedonian. For example, the North Macedonian capital, Skopje. There seems to be some confusion over on the move discussion about that because the nationality is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", then the demonym should always be Macedonian. "North Macedonian" has been used, for example, by Euronews (the North Macedonian constitution) and the draft statement to be presented to the US Senate (North Macedonian Prime Minister). --Michail (blah) 20:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, in my proposal above I've included "North Macedonian" as the adjectival form referring to the state. It is, indeed, the natural derivative in English and as such almost certain to be used. Whether it will also be used for the nationality, where according to the Prespa agreement it shouldn't be, remains to be seen (English usage in practice can't be dictated by the treaty, of course.) As for "of North Macedonia" being an "adjectival form", well, the problem is, it just isn't, grammatically. The Prespa agreement may be a wonderful thing, but of course it can't redefine the laws of English grammar, so it it really does specify that, it's just plain wrong. Also, I'd personally strongly advise avoiding throwing around the technical linguistic term "demonym" as long as most people here don't know what it really means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @Philly boy92 I think that we should distinguish the meaning of "demonym" from the "adjectival terms" used to describe things or people from or related to a country. The only common use of the demonym in wikipedia, is in the infoboxes and in all cases it links to the ethnic/national groups of each country. After all the demonym as a term is not widely used outside wikipedia and the definition is somewhat vague and therefore confusing. Otherwise I agree with all your comments. --Argean (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good and comprehensive work. I'm wondering if we should be more detailed on 5.1 concerning where the use of the adjectival form "of North Macedonia", or its natural language equivalent "North Macedonian", is applicable as stipulated by the agreement itself. --Argean (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said above, calling "of North Macedonia" an "adjectival reference" is a contradiction in terms, and if we were to understand the agreement as stipulating that truly adjectival forms such as "the North Macedonian capital" should always be avoided in favour of "the capital of North Macedonia", then of course Wikipedia is under no obligation at all to follow such a nonsensical rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but this is the exact wording of the agreement. No, I'm not suggesting to use the terminology of the agreement, "North Macedonian" is perfectly fine. What I meant is that maybe we should be more precise on which cases the term "North Macedonian" should apply according to the agreement (State, official organs, etc). --Argean (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The obvious alternative demonym at 3.2 would be "North Macedonian", for consistency with the adjectival form at 5.1.1 and as a fairly natural English extension of "North Macedonia". I'm not advocating or proposing it or suggesting that I would necessarily support it - I have no strong opinion here - it would seem appropriate to offer it as an option.


 * Could I perhaps suggest that if we're keeping the RM at Talk:Republic of Macedonia and accepting that it might result in a move, that we adopt some interim text on the current that says something like:

"This text is currently subject to a binding RFC, that will continue until [DATE]. You are invited to contribute [here]. The article previously at 'Republic of Macedonia' has been moved to 'North Macedonia' in anticipation that this guideline will be changed, but other articles should continue to adhere to this guideline until the RFC is complete and consensus has been judged."


 * This is to make it clear what is going on, so that the change in name at Republic of Macedonia sparks the least disruption possible. Kahastok talk 21:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea, but I'm not quite sure I understood exactly what you mean; where exactly do you propose posting that text? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thought I'd said that. On this page - WP:MOSMAC, somewhere near the top. Kahastok talk 21:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, @Kahastok's suggestion is good. That disclaimer text at least places a moratorium on things until this gets sorted out here.Resnjari (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a notice to the top of the page, although with different text, as the RFC has not started and the move has not occurred. Feel free to amend this text, which I have copied below for convenience.

"Due to the recent name change, a binding RFC will occur in the next month to amend this page. In the meantime, articles should still adhere to this guideline, excluding the move of Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia."


 * Danski454 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This makes perfect sense to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Hmmmm. Fut.Perf.'s draft is perfectly balanced. There is nothing I would modify/remove from it. I think the Prespa Deal isn't really THAT big of a deal after all, and this is becoming clearier now that the dust starts settling down. But, we missed something: having the Demonym as a distinct entry on its own, to help everyone clearly see how Demonym is treated separately from Ethnicity and Nationality. This is very important I believe, as it helps refer to it much faster if disputes ever arise on various articles in the future. (I can see this happening). So, I propose the addition of the following as a separate entry for obvious reasons:
 * 1) Demonym:
 * 2) The Demonym is used only for state institutions, official and diplomatic ranks, state representatives, state documents and state missions, the country's territories and state properties, and the national media, etc, should be North Macedonian, (i.e. North Macedonian media, North Macedonian passports, North Macedonian President, North Macedonian towns and cities). This demonym should not be confused with the Nationality and Ethnicity which may still be used to refer to ethnic-based organizations, or movements (aka Albanian parties, Macedonian parties, etc).
 * 3) [Alternative proposals to be added?]


 * If we add something like that, as a separate entry, it will help alot for future references! Edit: sorry for my bad english. -- &#10047; SilentResident &#10047; (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the use of the term "demonym" is appropriate for that purpose (demonym by definition should refer to people, not institutions, public organizations, etc) . I think that 5.1 should include all the proposed uses of adjectival references, i.e. Macedonian and North Macedonian, depending on context. Or we can add 5.2 to include what the agreement considers obligatory to be defined by the use of the adjectival reference "North Macedonian", i.e. the State, its official organs, and other public entities. --Argean (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Demonym refers to the people, and that remains Macedonian, according to the Prespa agreement, and also according to the vast majority of international media, so far. The adjectival references remain a point of debate. IMHO, the point of the Prespa Agreement in Article 1 was not to make an obligation to use the adjectival reference "North Macedonian", i.e. the State, its official organs, and other public entities, but precisely the opposite, to avoid its usage. They would have simply formulated that the adjectival reference is "North Macedonian" instead of going to the trouble to add “of the Republic of North Macedonia” or “of North Macedonia”. I think that we should be expecting clarifications from the government(s) about that particular article. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Demonym can also refer to the country, so the new NCMAC needs to consider this. according to the Prespa agreement the Prespa agreement specified Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, not Macedonian. If you are that interested in a literal interpretation of the agreement, you should be fighting for the demonym to be Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. My personal position is that it should be both in different contexts. Sources are already using North Macedonian as a demonym to denote a relationship with the state (as opposed to someone's ethnic identity). For example Balkan Insight (the North Macedonian government ), Euronews (the North Macedonian constitution ), the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (North Macedonian membership ), Al Jazeera (next North Macedonian generation ), Bloomberg News (North Macedonian name deal ), the Greens–European Free Alliance (Greek and North Macedonian governments  (this file downloads)), the Toronto Star (North Macedonian name deal ), The Athens-Macedonian News Agency (Greek and North Macedonian counterparts ), and others. For lolsies here is also the Hungarian government using the term Republic of North Macedonian . --Michail (blah) 13:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The word you are describing is actually ethnonym: "a name applied to a given ethnic group". --Michail (blah) 13:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @ I had a lengthy discussion the other day on a user's page about the origin of the various terms (demonym, ethnonym, endonym, exonym, toponym, etc), how they are related to eachother and what they represent. The common use of the term demonym refers only to people, as single individuals or as a group, , . All the other uses of an adjective can be defined just as "adjectival reference". This is not the place to do etymology. We should adopt definitions that are clear and straightforward, not ambiguous and potentially confusing. --Argean (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * sure, but pages like South Korea and South Sudan use both. I think both Macedonian and North Macedonian should be listed. --Michail (blah) 14:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well South Sudan only lists "South Sudanese" and e.g. in American Samoa the listed demonyms are distinguished to "official" for American Samoan and "colloquial" for Samoan. In the present case there is no officially defined demonym, but if we follow the common practice to mirror the term used to describe the nationality, we should list "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia" as official and leave the door open to "North Macedonian" if in the future a colloquial use of the term has been established. I think that the proposed guideline for nationality covers all needs. All the other uses of adjectival references are covered at 5.1. We just have to establish a consensus on the use of that adjectival references. --Argean (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't have time right now to get into it, but as I stated in this edit in the Talk:Republic of Macedonia discussion that is currently ongoing, the initiation of this RFC needs to be expedited. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems pretty good apart from 2. Firstly, I think the geographical region should be the first entry. After all, the person search wrote "Macedonia", not "North Macedonia". In the "Korea" disambiguation page, first there is the region, and then its constituent parts, and I think it makes more sense like that. I don't see much reason to include the former name. In the Congo disabmiguation name, we don't say "formerly Zaire" for the DRC. If we do temorarily until the dust settles, for how long will it be there until we remove it? If it is decided to include it I think we should decide from now how long it will be there, because it will be harder to settle it later. I also want to comment on 5.2. It is maybe the post difficult part of the process, but isn't there a precedent? Haven't we decided similarly for DRC/Zaire, or, more recently, where the change happened after Wikipedia was a thing, Swaziland/Eswatini? Antondimak (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add a second option for the disambiguation page to the draft above. Or, we could just agree to drop that point from the RfC and separately hack it out on the dab talkpage later, since that detail is currently not regulated by this guideline either. As to the argument itself, I'd personally defend having the entry on top. The issue is just that we need to meet readers' expectations. People will continue seeing plain "Macedonia" in reference to the country all over the place, both in Wikipedia and elsewhere, in all older sources if not also in ongoing usage, so it's to be expected we will keep getting lots of people typing "Macedonia" into the search box when looking for the country. Back when we last discussed the ordering, we had quite solid data that those were far and away the majority of all people using the disambiguation page, so that's why the entry ended up on top; how long it might take for that to change is a matter we can only guess now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably better to drop the point about it being on top from the RfC for now in order to reach a consensus more easily and discuss it in the talk page. Antondimak (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * About 5.2, thinking about it, it seems better to use the new name in most places. A person who knows about the topic won't have trouble with understanding the context, but for most readers using two names could be very confusing, especially because it's already quite confusing. You have Macedonia (region), Macedonia (Greece), Macedonia (Ancient kingdom) and the Republic of Macedonia. Now with the new name it will be more clear, but if we use "Macedonia" for 1991-2019 most people would probably just confuse it with the other "Macedonias". Antondimak (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to stress out that when you click on demonym it brings you to the ethnicity page, hence there is no North Macedonian ethnicity or nation, only Macedonian. It is only logical to keep the denonym Macedonian. Demonym is closer to Nationality (which remains Macedonian with slash Citizen of North Macedonia). North Macedonian is not to be used as per the agreement but 'of North Macedonia' instead. The government institutions will follow this rule and when they change their official names, Wikipedia will need to reflect those translations for example Radio Television of North Macedonia instead of North Macedonian Radio Television. Macedonicus (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this, I feel we actually have 8 topics for discussion, and the RFC should probably go on a separate page. The topics and proposals I see are, with proposals in brackets separated by semicolons: I will clarify if this is confusing. Danski454 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC) -- changed 21:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think continuing to use "Macedonian" as synonymous with "of North Macedonia" is going to get really confusing, really fast. I'm willing to wait and see what English-language secondary sources end up doing to guide our usage here on English-language Wikipedia. But I'd personally suggest limiting those usages where possible, some of which will happen naturally, as Macedonicus notes. For the country infobox, I think we should list both demonyms ("Macedonian" and "North Macedonian"), and in fact, I think that should be done right away. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For matters relating to the multi-ethnic state, I suggest using North Macedonian/of North Macedonia, while keeping the ethnicity as is, maybe by adding a parenthesis for differenciation from Greek Macedonians where necessary (so we have Macedonians (Greeks) and Macedonians (Slavs)). Antondimak (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Main article (Macedonia)
 * 2) Disambiguation (country link at top; move link to country down)
 * 3) Nationality of people (Macedonian; North Macedonian or Macedonian)
 * 4) Government organisations (Macedonian; North Macedonian; both; only "of North Macedonia")
 * 5) Adjective (Macedonian; North Macedonian; both)
 * 6) Language, ethnicity, culture etc. (Macedonian)
 * 7) Present day references (North Macedonia or Republic of North Macedonia)
 * 8) Historical names (Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia; North Macedonia)
 * "9. Redirects" - Redirects that have now become newly ambiguous should be added to this topic list. See Northern Macedonia, for which discussions have already begun. (Examples of others are; Republic Macedonia, Macedonians (regional group), Macedonian (disambiguation), Republic of Macedonia (disambiguation), Macedonia (country), South Macedonia, and Macedonia, Republic) - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how any of these is now "newly ambiguous" or why any of them would need to be changed. Maybe this problem, if it is one, is so obscure we can leave it out of the main RfC and just leave it to the normal decision channels? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This map File:Macedonia 1913 map.png sort of shows what I mean. Northern Macedonia could now refer to the state of "North Macedonia", or to the Bulgarian parts as well as North Macedonia, or it could refer to the northern half of the Greek portion of Macedonia alone. All this depends on your interpretation. Republic Macedonia could now refer to the three republics inside of Greece or to "North Macedonia" now that the term "Republic of Macedonia" is being retired. Macedonian (disambiguation) could easily refer to the Greeks in Greek Macedonia, or the people in North Macedonia, but this basically depends on the outcome of point # 3. South Macedonia could refer to the southern half of the Greek portion of Macedonia, or it could refer to the the portion south of the Bulgarian portion and North Macedonia, meaning the entire Greek portion. However Greeks particularly revile at this latter notion (just ask about his feelings towards that term). I could go on, but the point I am trying to make is it would be better to address these redirects as a part of this RFC than to leave them to interpretation thereafter and see them be constantly fought over back and fourth. I'm not saying this is the most important point of potential contention, but I am saying it IS a potential point of contention. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with, as i recently dig out, "Northern Macedonia" was a term for a very long time. Redirect should reflect modern usage, thus i am not sure recent (2000-2010) publication of historical book would use the term "Northern Macedonia" as a geopolitical term for history of that region until 1918, or other sort of publication referring to Northern portion of the country and "autonomous republic" formerly known as Republic of Macedonia. Matthew hk (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Northern Macedonia should redirect to Macedonia (region) since it is the, with note at the top pointing to North Macedonia as an alternative meaning. All should be treated like this, with a statement at the top of the page saying, for example  and . Republic of Macedonia is not ambiguous as there are no three "republics" in Greece, just three regions (one of which is part of a larger region). --Michail (blah) 11:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the mention . I know that I'm being very vocal on the issue of the use of "adjectives", but I'm more concerned about their use to refer to people, rather than to geographic regions. On the other hand I know very well that my fellow compatriots will not be very happy to find out that South Macedonia redirects to Macedonia (Greece). Just look what happened (apologies, article in Greek) to this poor reporter that made the mistake to say on live TV Hello from the borders between North and South Macedonia and now he is facing disciplinary proceedings. Anyway, the use of geographic attributes in a region like the Balkans, troubled with nationalistic and irredentist ideas for many decades now, is always a sensitive issue. The fact is further complicated by linguistic issues, such the ones described here, explaining that both words "North" and "Northern" usually translate to the same Greek word (βόρειος/βόρεια). I know that someone that is not so familiar with the complicated history and politics of Balkans, cannot see what's the issue on calling the people from North Macedonia, simply as "North Macedonians", and using the attribute "South" for their counterparts from their south, but this will make people from both sides completely enraged. For the Greeks they themselves will always be the "Real" Macedonians and the others, the "North" ones, will be the "fakes" that want to steal their history, and for ethnic Macedonians, putting the attribute "North" before their name is like stealing their identity and trying to erase them from the map. The deal handled everything in a gentle compromising fashion, giving to each side something that they really wanted (history for the Greeks, identity for the ethnic Macedonians), but the various issues that have emerged during the long lasting dispute between the two peoples will not be resolved so easily. --Argean (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I follow your train of thought up to a point, but I lose you when you start to say that North Macedonians implies South Macedonians. Surely by that logic "Macedonians" by itself implies that Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonians (Greeks) are the same thing because they both live in Macedonia (region). Greeks just need to accept that Macedonia is larger than Greek Macedonia, and other people live there and are just as entitled to call themselves Macedonian in the geographic sense. I would also like to point out that the simeological confusion arises from the fact that people can't see the difference between " n orth Macedonians" (i.e. Macedonians who live north) and "North Macedonians" (people of North Macedonia). --Michail (blah) 14:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonicus (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have a proposal regarding the adjective use and the demonym.
 * 1) Nationality of people: Macedonian (Citizens of North Macedonia) or Macedonian (North Macedonia)
 * 2) Government organizations: Following official translation i.e Government of North Macedonia but also Macedonian passport (North Macedonia) or Macedonian Parliament (North Macedonia). Explanation: The agreement has a paragraph regarding non-exclusivity of the usage of the term Macedonian so both countries can use it it accordingly, North Macedonia shouldn't use it in its official institution names but it can use the term as an informal adjective, hence adding (North Macedonia) to the adjective fills the non-exclusivity agreement, it is used by the northern state.
 * 3) Demonym: Macedonian (North Macedonia)
 * 4) Language, ethnicity, culture etc.: Macedonian
 * The Parliament does not fall under nationality; it is not a citizen. The agreement states that The 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”. It's either the Parliament of North Macedonia or the North Macedonian Parliament. --Michail (blah) 11:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Antondimak (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternative proposal:
 * 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: North Macedonian
 * 4) Language, ethnicity, culture etc.: Macedonian
 * I agree with this. --Michail (blah) 11:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Argean (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we started to make alternative proposals this is mine:
 * 1) Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or Macedonian (short)
 * 2) Government organizations: X of North Macedonia (official) or North Macedonian (general use)
 * 3) Demonym: Macedonian or Macedonian (North Macedonia) (potential to introduce North Macedonian in the future, if colloquial use has been established)
 * 4) Language, ethnicity, culture etc.: Macedonian

The proposal 3.2 by Michail on the official proposal is based on interpretation of the Article 1. That article is probably serves the purpose to avoid the term 'North Macedonian', not to embrace it. And no, MRT 1 will not be called North Macedonian Radio Televison, it will probably be called 'Radio Televison of North Macedonia', because of that article. People jokingly referred that if it was called North Macedonian Radio Television, the Macedonian translation would be Severno Makedonska Radio Televizija, with SMRT being an acronym. (SMRT means DEATH in Macedonian). :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say MRT will be called "North Macedonian Radio Television". I said "MRT1 is a North Macedonian television channel". If you want it in a larger sentence, "MRT1 is a North Macedonian television channel, part of Radio Television of North Macedonia" to use your example. Alternatively, "MRT is a television channel of North Macedonia, part of Radio Television of North Macedonia", but not "MRT is a Macedonian television channel, part of Radio Television of North Macedonia". Make sense? Sorry for the confusion --Michail (blah) 12:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, it was just funny. "MRT is a television channel of North Macedonia, part of Radio Television of North Macedonia" seems perfectly reasonable, btw. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No reason why we can't have two adjectival references, "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonian", used interchangeably. Especially since North Macedonian is already entering usage in mainstream sources.          . --Michail (blah) 13:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The usage is correct but redundant. RTHK radio 3 is a radio station of Radio Television Hong Kong is enough for example, presumably if the organisation is not a multinational organisation, it can omit foo TV channel from the sentence if the organisation already have the demonym. Also, seem good to me to avoid -ian just like BiH article (at least in football cat), avoided Bosnian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs) 2019-02-11T13:18:47 (UTC)
 * That was just an example of using "North Macedonian" as an adjectival reference alternative to "of North Macedonia", and to illustrate how the use of "Macedonian" in that sentence would be incorrect as it is an adjectival reference to the state, not a statement of nationality or ethnicity. There are probably much better examples out there to illustrate this than the one I clumsily made. --Michail (blah) 13:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a problem with calling it "Macedonian" for short, because that clashes with the equivalent Greek identity and creates confusion (which all the mess was about). We already use "Macedonians (Greeks)", so I think we could do the same for at least the citizenship by including "North". About the demonym, as it again is about the state, if we wait until "North Macedonian" becomes common, we should use "of North Macedonia", as that's how institutions will actually be name, to again avoid confusion with Greece (e.g. University of Macedonia). Antondimak (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Here are my proposes:

1. Nationality of the people: Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia (official), North Macedonian (short). Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agim_Ibraimi is a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia professional foorballer, or the much practice short variant, Agim Ibraimi is a North Macedonian professional footballer. He's of Albanian ethnicity btw, but that doesn't matter in these kind of cases.

2. Government organizations: X of North Macedonia or North Macedonian X, for example Parliament of North Macedonia or North Macedonian Parliament.

3. Demonym: North Macedonian/s, because the demonym refers to the all residents of one state, and not just to the dominant ethnic group. If the demonym be just Macedonian/s that will imply only to the ethnic Macedonians. Btw, the redirect for the North Macedonians should go the country North Macedonia, because we don't have an article with the name North Macedonians.

4. Ethnicity, language, culture etc.: Macedonian Sashko1999 (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to support @Argean's proposal on "Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or Macedonian (short). The formula is in line with the Prespa agreement of all parties concerned, even the third party, i.e Albanian politicians who got a concession out of Zaev that for their parliamentary vote on the name change, the term "Macedonian" is to be without any geographic qualifiers and also referring to citizenship. I think once the matter is decided on MOSMAC it should not be up for renegotiation unless the Prespa agreement itself is renegotiated in future. The Prespa agreement itself was the grand bargain struck by both countries that agreed to these things and as we are updating MOSMAC based on the agreement, leaving open questions like if so and so thing in the future happens (outside the agreement) then we change it to "North Macedonian" etc. That goes against the spirit of the agreement which compromised on things with this aspect of nationality/citizenship being one of them.Resnjari (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Some of the Albanian politicians opposed about this until the last day of the voting, beside that they knew that this term applies only to the citizenhip, but how the readers here will distinct the nationality from ethnicity?, for example if for this player writes that he's a Macedonian footballer, how they will know that we think on his nationality and not ethnicity?, will be confusing. Btw, many foreign media already started to use the adjective North Macedonian, for example, North Macedonian Prime Minister, North Macedonian Government etc. Sashko1999 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * True they did oppose because they wanted reassurances that the term "Macedonian" wont just connote ethnicity as there are other factors like citizenship involved as well. Currently Wikipedia has no issues about differentiating nationality and ethnicity. Macedonian is the term used for both. The Prespa agreement just confirmed such usages as being the agreed formula recongised by both sides. The same can apply here, with the small tweak that @Argean proposes with the Citizen of North Macedonia addition.Resnjari (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not be here to enforce the Prespa Agreement, like it did not enforce the Interim Accord. If you are suggesting that "Macedonian" should be used as an adjective in all instances (for example Macedonian Government instead of North Macedonian Government) then that is a hard no from me personally. In the agreement it is just the nationality that is specified as "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia", and adjectival references are in the style of "of North Macedonia" (North Macedonian for short, as has already began to be used). Should North Macedonian enter English, as it has began to do, then Wikipedia should use this even if it is not written as "North Macedonian" in the Prespa Agreement. When the current MOSMAC was adopted, we did not take into consideration the fact that Greeks find the usage of the terms Macedonia and Macedonian offensive, because they are the terms that are used in English. Why would we not use North Macedonian because some Macedonians find it offensive even if it is used in English? This is a bit of a double standard. We should use whatever is used commonly, and North Macedonian (as an adjective) has already began to be used and excluding it on grounds of "some people find it offensive" is not a sufficient argument in my personal opinion. Please correct me if I misunderstand your position. --Michail (blah) 17:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia in the past did not take into account what some Greeks found 'offensive' (i.e the existence of a unique modern Macedonian ethnic, language and nationality) because the encyclopedia project is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If people are making suggestions here based on that then are they not here to build an encyclopedia. On other things I would agree with you that Wikipedia should not be here to enforce the Prespa Agreement if there was no pagemove of the current Republic of Macedonia article to "North Macedonia" or MOSMAC staying the way it is without updates. The Prespa agreement is being enforced in Wikipedia as the pagemove shows and this discussion here on updating MOSMAC as being a result of that. Hence if the Prespa agreement has opened up those areas for change, other areas which were agreed to should also be applied. It can't be selective due to a individual's personal POV. The use of the term "north" for nationality/ethnicity was not officially agreed to by any party, neither Greek, Macedonian or even Albanian. On the issue of semantics, there has been no problem in how the term Macedonian has been used so far in Wikipedia, as per MOSMAC and really no issue why to change it when the official agreement made no stipulations for such a thing. @Argean's proposal on "Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or Macedonian (short) is neutral and does the job of making an important update.Resnjari (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand what is happening here. We are not implementing the Prespa Agreement; we are implementing what is . Refusing to accept that North Macedonian is entering English as an adjectival form of North Macedonia is in itself a POV. The use of the term "north" for nationality/ethnicity was not officially agreed to by any party this is irrelevant if it becomes common in English. And like I said before, a lot of reputable sources are already using "North Macedonian" as an adjective instead of "of North Macedonia". --Michail (blah) 18:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then there should not be a pagemove of the Republic of Macedonia article for some time until usage becomes common place. Yet the reason given for moving the page at this very moment is because of the Prespa agreement. If anything that is the main reason that editors in favour of change are citing over and over again. As i said before @Argean's proposal on "Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or Macedonian (short) is neutral and does the job of making an important update to MOSMAC in line with the Prespa agreement.Resnjari (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RoM is being moved to North Macedonia because according to the current NCMAC the title of the article for the country is it's constitutional name. Its constitutional name is no longer "Republic of Macedonia" so it is being moved. We are not doing it to follow the Prespa Agreement, we are doing it to follow NCMAC. NCMAC uses the most common English name (Macedonia, Macedonians, etc) but because the title is ambiguous, it was decided to name it after the constitutional name. You will notice that other articles are not being moved - because they follow NCMAC. If we followed the Interim Accord as closely as you seem to be implying we implement the Prespa on Wikipedia, the title should have been "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". --Michail (blah) 19:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Michail is right, the Prespa agreement is not a codex written by God and we must respect it 100%. Tell me, did we respect what is written in the South Korean constitution where writes that the nationality of the country is KOREAN, NO, because the term KOREAN can imply and to the citizens of North Korea and also to the ethnic Koreans. The same is and with the term Macedonian, this term can imply and to the ethnic Macedonians, and because of that it can't be a nationality or demonym to a country which is not called Macedonia. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The constitutional change is based on the Prespa agreement and that agreement does not state that "north" is the terminology for ethnicity/nationality. If we go by common name principles, what happens in future if news organisations etc refer to the ethnic group as "North Macedonians" because fine detail of the sort is not a priority for them and that expression becomes the commonname. Do we then move the page on the Macedonian ethnic group to "North Macedonians" because of common name? Having that as an open question to be addressed in future subject to changes is ripe for POV pushing, edit wars and disaster in future. One of the main reasons that there is a binding international treaty was to sort out how both countries would refer to Macedonia, its peoples and to set out guidelines for others on how to do so. Regarding other articles not being moved its because MOSMAC is still in force. Once again @Argean's proposal on "Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or Macedonian (short) if included in the updates of MOSMAC should not be subject to change thereafter.Resnjari (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we save debating the proposals for the actual RFC, this is just cluttering the thread for deciding what should be debated. Danski454 (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with but for the record, if North Macedonians becomes the most commonly used English name for the ethnic group, then yes it should be moved there. There is a policy called WP:COMMONNAME. Prespa is binding between Greece and North Macedonia. It is not binding to Wikipedia, which uses the precedent of most commonly used name. North Macedonian  being used as we speak as an adjectival reference to North Macedonia despite not being referenced in Prespa as such. That doesn't mean that it should be erased from Wikipedia.  is POV. Let's save the rest for the actual RfC. --Michail (blah) 20:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the redirect for "North Macedonians" should go to "Macedonians (ethnic group)". This would be most probably, after all, what the users typing will be searching for. Antondimak (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The term North Macedonians isn't an ethnic term, it's a political term (demonym) who refers to all citizens of North Macedonia, so, the redirect can't go to the ethnic group of Macedonians. Sashko1999 (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not all citizens of North Macedonia are ethnic Macedonians. 25% are Albanians. --Michail (blah) 18:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: the RFC looks good, but I do suggest prioritizing implementation of 1.1 (moving Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia.) It seems no accident that there appears to be overwhelming consensus for renaming the main article as suggested, while most other issues (disambiguation, demonym, etc.) generate more varied proposals, because the issue really is less clear. Bottom line: Can we uncouple the quick renaming of the main article (which, I agree, should happen on or very soon after 15 February) from discussing the trickier issues? —ThorstenNY (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that everyone that has made their mind up on these issues, can actually list their suggestions clearly stated on the guideline above, so we can move forward. I don't know if there are any other issues that anyone would like to propose, or if anyone disagrees with including any of the above points into the RfC. --Argean (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Summary Comment I read the whole discussion again patiently and carefully and I'm realizing that we are just going around in circles and not doing any real progress to finalize a draft for RfC. I will try to go through the points that were set earlier by and summarize a few things.
 * 1) Main article: I guess we are referring to this one right? If yes, I can see that there are 2 views: we either agree that the article should be moved to North Macedonia by the current RM, or we don't make any changes and wait for MOSMAC to be updated first. In the latter case I've seen also people suggesting to use "Republic of North Macedonia" alternatively.
 * 2) Disambiguation page: we either keep the current order and change the name of the entry of "Republic of Macedonia" accordingly, adding a short explanatory text (there are 2 options listed at the proposed RfC) or we change the order and put Macedonia (region) first.
 * 3) Nationality of people: I have a major issue here because I'm not sure if we are even supposed to debate on that. I mean, the nationality is defined by law, we can't impose a term that is not defined by law. The agreement stipulates that the official term for nationality is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of Macedonia" and does not define a short form. Do we need a short form? My guess is that we need one, at least for the lead paragraphs of biographies (WP:MOSBIO). Are we entitled to decide for a short form or this constitutes WP:OR? I have no clue. If we are clear from these procedural issues there are 2 proposals on the table for the short form of the nationality: "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian"
 * 4) Government organisations and other associated entities: This is also defined by the agreement as "of North Macedonia". We have mainly 2 options: either to use only the proposed format, or introduce another one that will be easier to use, such as the proposed "North Macedonian". Another option is to keep the currently used "Macedonian" as alternative. We have to make clear that this point refers ONLY to public organs and other official entities, including governmental and other official ranks (e.g. the Prime Minister, the President, etc)
 * 5) Adjective: This refers to all adjectival forms, including the demonyms and apparently applies to people, as single individuals and as a population, and entities that are not included on the above list. There are many proposals here and I think that this will become the most complicated issue, because it is not addressed by the agreement. The proposals include to use only the term "Macedonian", use only "North Macedonian", use both, or use alternatives such as "Macedonian (North Macedonia)". Apparently this choice on adjectives applies to: titles of any such articles (if any), links within various articles and the infobox of Republic of Macedonia
 * 6) Language, ethnicity, culture etc This is straightforward since all agree on keeping the term "Macedonian"
 * 7) Present day references I don't think that there is a lot of debate here too, and it seems that most of us agree on replacing "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia", with "North Macedonia" and "Republic of North Macedonia" respectively
 * 8) Historical names This is another issue that we barely touched and I expect to become problematic at some point. The obvious choice is to keep "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" for all the articles that refer to the 1991-2019 period, but there is an alternative proposal to replace it with "North Macedonia" and "Republic of North Macedonia"
 * 9) Redirects I'm not sure that we should include that point, but I certainly acknowledge the need to have the issue reviewed.
 * For number 3, I would say there are enough secondary sources around that it is not WP:OR, so we can determine the WP:COMMONNAME. Danski454 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have created a subpage of the guideline for the RFC: Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. Please make any necessary changes before opening the discussion. Danski454 (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just want to notice that there has been a lot of confusion over the definition of the word "nationality" in both countries:, , , . In Greek the same word is used to describe both "nationality" and "ethnicity", and my understanding is that the same occurs also in Albanian language. That was one of the issues that led to this complex definition of nationality as "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia". Nationality is not always the same as the demonym (that stupid term that we've been discussing endlessly for the last couple of weeks), e.g. People from Northern Ireland have either British or Irish nationality, but the demonym "Northern Irish" is sometimes used. I'm not sure if we should list nationality and demonym as being the same thing (because both refer to people), list demonym as an adjectival reference to the people and include it under section 5 (as I did previously), list demonym separately (as suggested earlier), or skip it completely? Opinions anyone? --Argean (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * either British or Irish nationality some people have Northern Irish nationality, neither British nor Irish. I don't think Ireland is a good example, it's super complicated. The nationality in this case is Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonian, which is fine. We can also shorten it to Macedonian when refering to nationality, I'm personally OK with that. But like I said previously it should not be used in lieu of the adjectival reference "of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonian". There needs to be a clearly-defined set of parameters as to when Macedonian is applicable and when "of North Macedonia"/"North Macedonian" is applicable. In some cases it is obvious, in others not so much. For example Gruevski is both a Macedonian politician (a politician who is Macedonian) and a North Macedonian politician (a politician of North Macedonia). A rule of thumb to determine this is "if you had to link the adjective, would you link to Macedonians (ethnic group) or North Macedonia"? The current Gruevski article links the word "Macedonian" to "Republic of Macedonia", therefore Macedonian is not an ethnicity but an adjectival form of the name. I'm not sure exactly  to formulate this clearly apart from the "would you link the adjective to the ethnic group or the country?". I think perhaps the best thing to do is to list all possible terminology (1. Macedonian, 2. Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia (North Macedonian Citizen is a possible variant I guess), 3. of North Macedonia 4. North Macedonian), all possible uses, and ask people to vote where each term should be assigned based on how they are being used in reliable sources. --Michail (blah) 23:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I suggest it's better to leave people of Northern Ireland to their peace. There is no such thing as "Northern Irish nationality" or "Northern Irish citizenship" - people born in Northern Ireland can choose to be British citizens, Irish citizens or both, as explained in the official governmental website (apologies I forgot about the dual citizenship). And they use nationality and citizenship interchangeably. By the way, I rather like the "North Macedonian Citizen" as an alternative, but should we list it under the options for nationality? --Argean (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Main article. I think the only open question is when to rename to North Macedonia. With such overwhelming consensus in the current RM for N.M., does anybody really think any other name is feasible/would be able to command consensus? So the remaining question appears to be: Can we (I) rename as soon as the RM has formally reached consensus — or do we (II) have to wait for a more complex ARBCOM process to work out? I’ve been arguing for (I), because I believe that ARBCOM is only needed for highly controversial issues, which North Macedonia isn’t after Prespa. The RM seems to show that the name North Macedonia isn’t controversial at all.
 * 2. Disambiguation. Clearly the least important issue. I maybe have a slight preference for N.M. now, with the understanding that this would almost certainly have to be changed to M. (region).
 * 3. Nationality. It seems like a foregone conclusion to me that English speakers without strong ties to the Macedonian ethnic group will use North Macedonian as soon as they us North Macedonia. Presumably also ethnic Albanians will identify themselves as North Macedonian (citizens.) Many/most ethnic Macedonians will probably give their citizenship as Macedonian for a while, but should this really be the deciding factor for the English-language WP? I would be comfortable with something along the lines of “Nationality: Macedonian or North Macedonian (but long form always citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia).
 * 4., 5. and 6. I think that we can safely ignore the awkward phrasing of Prespa and simply follow its spirit: North Macedonian for anything related to the state (which includes citizenship); Macedonian for anything related to language, ethnicity, etc.
 * 7. Present-day reference. Yes, North Macedonia.
 * 8. Historical names. Republic of Macedonia (esp. if first reference) or Macedonia (if unambiguous) for country between 1991 and 2018. North Macedonia makes no sense for that period.
 * 9. Redirects. Republic of Macedonia→North Macedonia and Republic of North Macedonia→North Macedonia seem obvious. Macedonian (already a disambiguation page) can stay as is. North Macedonian should probably become a new disambiguation page? What else do we need? —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have a potentially crazy notion! (Feel free to shoot down this idea, or call it completely nuts as you may see fit). It is partly based on a notion brought up by and  earlier (credit where credit is due). Why don't we propose; "Macedonian (North)" for the demonym, nationality, adjective, and/or government institutions as well? After all, we already have an article about the geographical Greek region as "Macedonia (Greece)" This kind of goes along the same lines as that concept, being as fair and neutral to the northerners and greeks as possible. "Macedonia (North)" (no "n") can then be a redirect to the country's future label "North Macedonia" to maintain this consistency. Of course, it doesn't apply to the ethnic group "Macedonian" which is still a bit of a sticking point, but is officially addressed in the Prespa agreement as referring to northerners (not that we need to apply the agreement's terms definitively, but it helps to follow it a bit). The more I think about this, the more I come to feel I should add it to the draft RFC, unless there is huge opposition to my mentioning the very idea of this concept here, naturally. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Credit goes to, I just copied it. , honestly it doesn't look bad at all to me but I could only see it being used as a demonym and listed in the infobox, as a consensus solution. I can't really see it as a nationality, adjectival, or governmental reference. But we can still list it, maybe under the adjectives? --Argean (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the first and foremost criterion is of course that the term needs to be naturally useable in English. An adjective with an arbitrary non-syntactical addition in parentheses stuck in the middle of the phrase is not natural English. Plus, per policy, we cannot invent our own terms here; we have to go by what reliable sources do (or at least, what reliable sources are likely to do in the future). This "(North)" thing is right out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world we would make decisions based on the simplicity and natural usability of the terms, but the Prespa Agreement put an end to a 30 year old painful dispute, its wording has been carefully chosen not to cause any conflict, and saying that Wikipedia shouldn't abide it it's a bit insensitive to both Greeks and Macedonians especially when we have Greek politicians from the hard-core opposition not once daring to use the term 'North Macedonian'. Like it or not, the solution needs to be based on the agreement's grounds at least for now. Article 1(f) of the agreement is clear that state organs/gov funded institutions will have the 'of North Macedonia' adjective, the agreement (Article 7) suggests that in other cases the adjective Macedonian can be used by both parties with non-exclusivity. So, a Macedonian Football Team (North Macedonia) will never be confused with Macedonian Football Team (Greece) because of the country name in . I strongly object using North Macedonian because it is not meant to be used, simple as that. I suggest other 'creative' solutions such as the one I proposed. Cheers.

PS. Here are some other examples/proposals that we could take into account: - Government of North Macedonia or Macedonian Government (North Macedonia) or North Macedonia Government (using the name of the country as an adjective). Macedonicus (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Three comments: Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nationality: it depends. If we just have a place to list country of citizenship, "North Macedonia" will be the only acceptable alternative, unless by some bizarre circumstance the country doesn't end up getting moved.  If "North Macedonian" is rejected as the adjective, I'd prefer avoiding the adjective altogether, e.g. "So and so is a politician from North Macedonia", because the absence of a state called "Macedonia" will prompt someone to consider this a regional matter ("is he from North Macedonia, or northern Greece, or southwestern Bulgaria?"), and it could also be interpreted as an ethnic statement.  Ethnicity: I don't really know what to think, so I'll offer no opinion.
 * Historical contexts: we have to continue referring to the country as "Macedonia" not just 1991-2019, but 1945-1991 as well. It wouldn't be at all helpful to use today's term for the country under a former name.  You wouldn't speak of someone visiting the DR Congo in 1985, and saying that Chulalongkorn was King of Thailand in the 1860s would be nonsensical; calling the country "North Macedonia" in a 1980s or 2000s context would be equally silly.
 * Who will use "Macedonian (North)"? I can't envision this term, or its translation, becoming common anywhere or in any significant-sized group of people.
 * "Who will use "Macedonian (North)"? I can't envision this term, or its translation, becoming common anywhere or in any significant-sized group of people." - That is kind of the point @ it is an arbitrary instance of the term, it is not being used by anyone to describe anything in particular. As such, it is more neutral than a lot of other proposals "Macedonian", "North Macedonian", etc. I don't expect it to be adopted widely outside of wikipedia, but that is kind of the point. Outside sources can have their bias towards one perspective or another as they wish, be we be using an arbitrary description like this that is as neutral as possible. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Main article: North Macedonia, obviously.
 * 2) Disambiguation page: Keep the current order, I think. Most Wikipedia readers will still research for the modern country. Despite the constant suggestions that 'North Macedonia' or even 'North Macedonian' will become commonplace, The Economist speculates that the old name will stick around for a while. It would be a good idea to educate them that it has since changed its name.
 * 3) Nationality of people: Macedonian / citizens of North Macedonia (official) or Macedonian (short). This is as defined by the Prespa Agreement. While Wikipedia is by no means obligated by the Prespa Agreement, it is (a) very unlikely that official entities will refer to the nationality as somewhat other than that and (b) debatable whether "North Macedonian" will catch on in international media, especially when using it to refer to a people. Usually most media don't refer to a nationality with a term that the same nationality has specifically requested and agreed not to be called.
 * 4) Government organisations and other associated entities: Defined by the agreement as "of North Macedonia", so in a way to deliberately avoid the adjective 'North Macedonian'. I'm expecting to see an official government interpretation of the Article 1 that defines its usage. I think that 'North Macedonian' is unlikely to be used in any official context, and those who have already used it (ALDE, Green-EFA) will probably start using the "of North Macedonia" form. International media is an entirely different matter. Despite few "North Macedonian" references, "Macedonian" remains the most widely used term to refer to gov. organizations and public entities. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and unless there is sufficient evidence that indeed "North Macedonian" vastly surpassed "Macedonian" insome point in the future, I'd think the best option is to try to avoid using the adjectival form altogether when referring to govt. entities.
 * 5) Adjective: This will probably become the most complicated issue. People (meaning collectively and individually), ethnicity, cultural references should remain "Macedonian" unless there is a potential to confuse with Greek Macedonian identity and heritage and with Ancient Macedon. I think "Macedonian (North Macedonia)" should suffice to distinguish in the former, while "(modern) Macedonian" will be sufficent to make a difference in the latter case.
 * 6) Language, ethnicity, culture etc "Macedonian"
 * 7) Present day references Replace "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia", with "North Macedonia" and "Republic of North Macedonia" respectively
 * 8) Historical names Keep "Republic of Macedonia" for all the articles that refer to the 1991-2019 period. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the time ripe to start the thing now? I'm posting a new draft below incorporating a few of the alternatives vented above (others can still be added). Should we open it for voting? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Redundant draft removed Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't split the drafts. This location is good enough to be creating a draft in, also I am making this a sub-section of the main discussion as it is just a part of it. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hadn't seen somebody already opened that subpage, my apologies. Removing this draft then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment So will 12 February 2019 be the recognised "cut-off point", i.e. all specific mentions of the country on that day or after should use "North Macedonia", while all mentions on or before 11 February 2019 should use "Macedonia"? Also, what should be the setup of the country data template system for flags? Should Template:Country data Macedonia redirect to Template:Country data North Macedonia (similar to Template:Country data Swaziland → Template:Country data Eswatini), or should they both exist (similar to Template:Country data FR Yugoslavia and Template:Country data Serbia and Montenegro)? I'd think the second option would be better, but either way, Template:Country data MKD will have to redirect to Template:Country data North Macedonia. Many articles which use the country data template system for flags will need to be updated to follow the revised WP:MOSMAC guidelines. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment 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
 * 4. Language, ethnicity, culture etc. of that ethnic group: Macedonian--APG1984 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, we have been continuing this conversation on the following page; WT:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC, after the draft RfC was generated here. Please post any suggestions there instead (End of the draft period is now at 18:00 UTC on 15 Feb.). - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Lining up with Prespa Agreement:
 * Country: North Macedonia Agreement is clear, country cannot be referenced by any name other than North Macedonia.
 * People: Citizents of North Macedonia, agreement is clear also here. The phrase should accompany any person when an attempt to describe their nationality is made.
 * Languange: (South) Slavic Macedonian, agreement is clear, when refering to the language, it should be noted that it is a south slavic language.
 * Ancient Macedonian refences should be removed from North Macedonia articles. Prespa agreement clearly states that Ancient Macedonia has no relation to modern day North Macedonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Περίεργος (talk • contribs) 15:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, a vote is currently ongoing at WT:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC and the discussion is occurring under the RfC format. Please go express your opinions there. This draft discussion has ended and I will be closing it now. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Article moved
Just to note that I have closed the requested move and moved the article to North Macedonia. Whatever happens with this RfC, the consensus over there was overwhelming. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBURO and all that, but it would have been better to wait for this to go the normal seven-day discussion period. Dekimasu よ! 23:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I sort of agree with you there, but I know we also would have had an uprising on our hands. Ultimately, I reluctantly support 's decision. There was an enormous amount of requests coming in to change the page, the move request was all but certain at that point for the new name. It was getting hard for experienced editors available at the time to keep up with all the IPs and new users constantly making requests. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Can/should we still ask people to hold off making changes?
Is the warning box added the other day ("articles should still adhere to this guideline") still worth keeping there? At this point, well-meaning and often not very experienced people are moving and rewording articles left, right and center, and it seems hardly feasible to ask them to stop. Should we just accept that we can't stem the tide (and leave the necessary tidying-up of over-eager changes for later)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As I noted in the RM - and I acknowledge that the text was my proposal originally - I have come to the conclusion that the position articulated by the text is untenable.


 * But we should perhaps say something to acknowledge the change and link to the RFC. Maybe asking that people use discretion when dealing with changes from Macedonia to North Macedonia, for example.  And we only want to open the door to the changes that we're likely to endorse anyway - given that the RFC almost certainly won't endorse, it would still be a problem for people to try to mass-replace Macedonia with FYROM. Kahastok talk 19:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest maybe:
 * Kahastok talk 21:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 👍 I like it... Hmmm, maybe inside the notice we should wikilink to the RFC page when it goes live? That way we will advertise to get more editors, who are interested in the subject, providing a relevant vote. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have implemented the change. Danski454 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have implemented the change. Danski454 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Demonym
I thought it would be useful to separate out this discussion, as some people in the Draft RFC also proposed, to distinguish it from other issues discussed there and to make things a bit less confused. The question here concerns the demonym of the country of North Macedonia, namely: Ideally (IMO) the answer to the above two should be the same. Demonym is NOT the same thing as adjectival reference (i.e. North Macedonian Parliament, North Macedonian cuisine etc.), nor ethnicity (which, as far as I can tell, remains unchanged as Macedonian/ethnic Macedonian) and I would recommend setting up separate RFCs for those issues. Demonym is also not necessarily the same thing as nationality, as illustrated by the example of North Korea, where the nationality is Korean, listed demonyms are North Korean and Korean, and the demonym used in articles is North Korean.
 * 1) What should be listed under Demonym(s) in the article 'North Macedonia'
 * 2) How to refer to people from North Macedonia in articles e.g. 'Zoran Zaev is a XXX politician', 'Ali Ahmeti is an XXX politician', 'Goran Popov is a XXX football player', 'many XXX residents', 'many prominent XXX musicians' etc.

Based on my reading of the discussion in the Draft RFC, four main views have emerged:
 * North Macedonian only - Match demonym to name of country for minimum confusion and to be able to refer to everyone and everything from the country in the same way, including, for example, people who may be from North Macedonia but may or may not hold Macedonian nationality (e.g. Albanians, residents who aren't citizens)
 * North Korea model: 'Demonym(s): North Macedonian, Macedonian', 'North Macedonian politician', 'North Korean football player' etc. - Minimises confusion and also closely matches double-barreled nationality under Prespa Agreement 'Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia'
 * Macedonian only - Match self-identified nationality of most citizens of North Macedonian while staying true to the fact that the Prespa Agreement never mentions the term 'North Macedonian'
 * Macedonian for now, wait for consensus - Keep Macedonian for now as it was the demonym under the previous name and wait to see what language sources use going forward

My own quick review of news sources since the name change (12th February) has revealed:

'North Macedonian prime minister', 'North Macedonian premier' , 'North Macedonian Defense Minister'  , 'North Macedonian official'  , 'North Macedonian authorities' , 'North Macedonian residents', 'North Macedonian nationals' , 'North Macedonian fake-news creators' , 'North Macedonian counterpart' , 'North Macedonian lawyers'

'Macedonian Prime Minister', 'Macedonian Foreign Minister' , 'Macedonian workers' , 'Macedonian soldiers' , 'many Macedonians feel humiliated' , 'Macedonians, who speak a Slavic language' , 'Macedonian prosecutor' , 'Macedonian official', 'Macedonian counterpart' , 'Macedonian church leaders', 'Macedonian Christians'


 * North Korea model: My personal vote if for Demonym(s): North Macedonian, Macedonian and North Macedonian everywhere else. No other country with a double name (North Korea, South Africa etc.) has a demonym that doesn't match its name. I believe Macedonian as a demonym for someone from North Macedonia is unnecessarily confusing, particularly since there is an ethnicity and three overlapping regions with the same name. Further, Macedonian is not that country's nationality (the nationality is Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia) and it appears that for Albanian citizens of North Macedonia it will only be 'citizens of North Macedonia', meaning 'Macedonian' will be an inaccurate designation for them. Finally, it looks like the adjectival reference for the country will most likely be North Macedonian, in which case you will create an enormous number of confusing grey areas and inconsistencies if the demonym is different (North Macedonian government but Macedonian government officials, North Macedonian film but Macedonian filmmakers, North Macedonian population but population of Macedonians etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkyriakop (talk • contribs) 2019-02-14T02:01:43 (UTC) — Kkyriakop (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Matthew hk (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Macedonian for now, wait for consensus: The Prespa Agreement is against the usage of "North Macedonian" as an adjective, besides North Macedonia's Government Spokesperson in an interview for CNN stated that the citizens should be called Macedonians, not North Macedonians (CNN Article), so there is no confusion there. As for the concern the Albanians, they will also have Nationality: Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, they will not have special treatment. --Macedonicus (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)