Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Archive 4

Next steps?
I see we’re minutes from 1800 UTC. Is there still voting for anything? Anybody need help with anything right now? Any tie-breakers needed? For what it’s worth, it seems to me that things are in a reasonably good shape right now. —ThorstenNY (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , since you are here it would really help to define if your Note at Proposal 8, should be interpreted as Support/Conditional or Abstain! Thanks --Argean (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I went on and updated the RCF with 's proposal on the disambiguation section. I also moved the Media repository. There was also that wanted to vote on Proposal 8 thinking that the deadline is until 18:00 UTC. --Despotak (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I wanted to scrap the section to begin with, I didn’t want to vote on its contents. So Abstain, then, I suppose. —ThorstenNY (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! That means that for proposal 8 we have no majority...
 * Thanks u|Despotak! I think that we should respect the deadline for voting, since no one rejected for it, when it was set. I had to remove a vote cast by after the deadline, because I had already started closing sections and it seemed to me fair to keep the same terms for all sections. I'm pretty sure that the demonym issue will come up during the RfC process anyway.
 * I think we are ready and I guess we should go live then! --Argean (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 👍 —ThorstenNY (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 👍 --Despotak (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I might sound ignorant, but should we move the page first? --Argean (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also ignorant about that. --Despotak (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 👍 - I agree, go live. If everyone is fine with it, I will remove the prohibition from voting statement now. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * yay! -- &#10047; SilentResident &#10047; (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 👍 Let's start then! --Argean (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Shall we add a timestamp to the ending date? like 23:59 UTC? --Despotak (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 👍 Thanks for the addition of the Media Link repository at the end there, it's better this stuff is just in a separate section, and now it is available to any that need it. - Wiz9999 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * From Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC to Naming conventions (Macedonia)? If that’s what you mean, I really don’t know what the recommended process for this might be (and if there is one.) Obviously the finished policy should be on the top page after the process has completed. If we moved the RfC there now, more people would find it. What’s there now certainly seems obsolete. So I would be okay with archiving anything that’s there and putting the RfC on top. Or, wait, do you perhaps mean renaming to Naming conventions (North Macedonia)/2019 RFC (or Naming conventions (North Macedonia))? That seems reasonable, too. —ThorstenNY (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added the RfC template and linked from WP:CENT --Danski454 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That should be fine! Should we add a notice at WP:MOSMAC and Talk:North Macedonia? --Argean (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So is this process here supposed to superceede WP:MOSMAC? Should it? Might it be prudent to keep MOSMAC for “FYROM(1991-2019)”-related articles and mentions? And establish “MOSNMAC”? —ThorstenNY (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's an amendment to WP:MOSMAC, because we followed the process set by ARBMAC to review/update MOSMAC. And I just now realized that already linked the notice on the top of the page there with this RfC! --Argean (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * : Makes sense (amending MOSMAC.) But just to be extra-careful: Is there anything in the current MOSMAC that we might (explicitly) want to keep to still have guidance for dealing with 1991–2019-related content? The current MOSMAC is a lot more specific than our proposed Historical Names section. —ThorstenNY (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been reading WP:MOSMAC many times, while discussing on the draft, and I did raise the issue at some point that we might need to look more into the 1991-2019 period. The short answer is that I have no idea, and the detailed one that I'm feeling that this time we 're dealing with the name dispute in a different way, because previous WP:MOSMAC was mostly trying to address properly various disambiguation issues on terminology, while now we are moving rather to disambiguation of the content, which is far trickier. I'm still worried that we are missing something especially in regard to past references, but let's wait and see what will come up during the discussion. --Argean (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the media link repo to the RCF. Add new entries there, directly. --Despotak (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You did so without addressing the concerns I had with some of the links claiming to use 'Macedonian' for state-sponsored entities. --Michail (blah) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not have the time to go over all of them a 3rd time to check for edits. I did check them out as they were posted, and went over all of them again yesterday afternoon. As I wrote in the RFC, "If you spot inconsistencies, please edit accordingly" --Despotak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So I should just remove the contested links without discussion? Why was this posted live when there were concerns? There was an entire discussion about proper methodology and the need to agree on the validity of sources. --Michail (blah) 19:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you link to (or briefly restate) your concerns about any (which?) links? In general, I would think that these link sections should be treated as living documents, with editors free to add relevant links? I’m not sure under what circumstances links should be removed without discussion (unless they’re very obviously irrelevant.) —ThorstenNY (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My concerns are listed in the discussion part of the media links section above. --Michail (blah) 19:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On top of that, I have some issues with some of the articles you have listed.
 * "visiting Macedonian speaker" is a reference to nationality, not a state-related reference. It should be removed.
 * "Talat Xhaferi, visiting Macedonian speaker present in the hall" --Despotak (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the references to "Macedonian" in this article have to do with historical usage (eg. in 2016 Zaev promised a new era of Macedonian politics). It should also be removed.
 * I give you that --Despotak (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The only references to Macedonian are regarding the Denar and the language. Dubious that this should be in your list.
 * The ISO defined the currency as Denar. So "Macedonian Denar" is used by the media. --Despotak (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This article also says "oh behalf of the parliament and people of North Macedonia ".
 * By STA. Uses both forms. Should be in both sections --Despotak (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This article uses its only reference of "Macedonian" for a picture of Dimitrov on February 6. Dubious historical usage.
 * Opinion piece. I believe that opinion pieces should not be included --Despotak (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The FAP article also uses 'Macedonia' as the country name, so I'm not entirely sure they have 'switched' yet.
 * The question is not if the "changed" yet, but if they are going to change. --Despotak (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Same goes for FOX.
 * Articles with inconsistent content should not be left in either category, they should be in a 'uses more than one reference in the same article' category.
 * All edits done in good faith are welcome. Both myself (a national Greek) and (a national Macedonian) are humans and we are not above mistakes. --Despotak (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Talat Xhaferi's reference is that of nationality, not state-sponsored organs. That article has no place in that list. Also, obviously articles that have not switched to using the country name North Macedonia should not be used to demonstrate that they prefer to refer to the people of North Macedonia as Macedonians instead of North Macedonians. --Michail (blah) 19:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t worry about any of these links. This discussion is going to be open for a while. The newer the links, the more informative they are as how to usage is shaking out. As time goes on, any links posted very soon after the renaming (or whatever deadline we have imposed) will become less and less relevant to informing editors’ opinions. I say, just leave them all in there and keep adding new (relevant) ones. —ThorstenNY (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So much for that mutually-agreed framework of proper methodology then. --Michail (blah) 19:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, just went through the list and I have some serious objections:
 * [] North Macedonian officials and North Macedonian Prime Minister are state-associated ranks
 * North Macedonian minister is a state-associated rank
 * North Macedonian Defense Minister is a state-associated rank
 * North Macedonian official is a state-associated rank
 * 2 sources are dated before 12/02 which is not consistent with our methodology
 * I'm wondering is there any reason for the inconsistencies? --Argean (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PS. I applied the necessary changes to conform with the methodology. --Argean (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PS2. And just realized that all above were double posts that were included, hopefully by mistake, in both sections for people and state-related --Argean (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)