Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Archive 5

Media Link repository
Note: only includes links published after February 12, 2019. ''If the report is a reproduction from a news agency (Associated Press (USA), Reuters (UK), Agence France-Presse (France)), please add it along the date of publication. Thank you very much, Despotak (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)''

Country name
Media reports that use the term "Macedonia": Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (published 12/02/19), Reuters (published 13/02/19), Agence France-Presse (published 13/02/19)

Media reports that use the term "North Macedonia": Associated Press (published 12/02/19 and reproduced by many international media like Voice of America, Fox News, Herald Sun), Deutsche Welle (published 12/02/19), The Guardian (published 12/02/19), The New York Times (by AP, published 13/02/19), The Irish Times (published 13/02/19), CNN (published 13/02/19), BBC (published 14/02/19), Associated Press (published 14/02/19)Kathimerini (published 14/02/19), France 24 (by AFP, published 14/02/19)

Media reports that use the term "Republic of North Macedonia":

Nationality of people
(Note: Most, if not all, of the reports use the term as a demonym, and not as nationality by it's legal meaning --Despotak (talk))

Media reports that use the term "Macedonian": The Guardian (published 12/02/19), The Independent  (published 13/02/19), The National Herald (Greek-American news) (published 13/02/19), CNN  (published 13/02/19), Reuters  (published 13/02/19), Euronews  (by Reuters, published 13/02/19), The Slovenia Times  (published 13/02/19) Media reports that use the term "North Macedonian": Gulf Times (published 15/02/19)

Media reports that use other terms: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (published 14/02/19): "13 N. Macedonians killed in bus crash"

Adjective used for State-associated entities
Media reports that use the term "Macedonian": The Guardian (published 12/02/19), Associated Press (inconsistent - see below) (published 12/02/19), Voice of America (by AP, published 12/02/19), Fox News (by AP, published 12/02/19), Washington Post (by AP, published 12/02/19), The Independent (published 13/02/19), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (published 12/02/19 and 13/02/19), Reuters (published 13/02/19), Euronews  (inconsistent - see below) (by Reuters, published 13/02/19), Agence France-Presse (published 13/02/19)  (published 14/02/19), Anadolu Agency  (inconsistent - see below) (published 13/02/19), Defense News  (published 13/02/19), The Slovenia Times  (published 13/02/19),  BBC (published 14/02/19), Xinhua  (published 14/02/19)  (published 15/02/19)(inconsistent - see below), Associated Press (published 14/02/19), The National Interest  (published 14/02/19), Daily Sabah  (published 15/02/19)

Media reports that use the term "North Macedonian": Euronews (inconsistent - see above) (published 13/02/19), Gulf Times (published 13/02/19), The Irish Times(published 13/02/19), BloombergQuint(published 13/02/19), France 24  (by AFP, published 14/02/19), US News  (by AP, published 14/02/19), Anadolu Agency (inconsistent - see above) (published 14/02/19), Xinhua  (published 14/02/19)  (published 15/02/19) (inconsistent - see above), Associated Press  (inconsistent - see above) (published 14/02/19), Washington Post  (by AP - published 14/02/19), Manila Bulletin  (by AF-P, published 14/02/19), Deutsche Welle  ("North Macedonian flag" description, published 12/02/19), Bulgarian News Agency  (published 13/02/19)

Media reports that use other terms: Herald Sun) (by AP, published 12/02/19): "Macedonia's government", Washington Post (by AP, published 13/02/19): "North Macedonia's defense minister", Associated Press (published 12/02/19 and reproduced by many international media): "North Macedonia’s deputy foreign minister" Sky News (published 13/02/19): North Macedonia's border, Fox News Macedonia's health minister (by AP, published 14/02/19), United Nations (alternative - see above) (published 14/02/19): "of North Macedonia", Kathimerini (published 14/02/19): "of North Macedonia" Fox News: : North Macedonia's (published 14/02/19) Washington Post (AP) : Macedonia's (published 15/02/19)

(Note: non-consistency inside the same article from AP and other outlets) --Despotak (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Not including the sources mentioned previously, which use North Macedonian as an adjective, skews the accuracy and neutrality of this list. Like Future Perfect said, there is no reason why people who started using North Macedonian before 12/2/19 can’t be used to show that it is entering use as an adjective. —Michail (blah) 09:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily oppose, however, if the consensus is that we will use RS before 12/02/2019 be aware that we will also include all the sources that use 'Macedonian' as an adjective. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a rule that you made up. I don’t want to point out NPOV issues, but it seems to me that the entire issue is done so as to force the use of ‘Macedonian’ as the sole adjective. Your assertion that sources before 12/2 use Macedonian as an adjective for North Macedonia is pure WP:OR. You cannot prove that sources are using it because they haven’t switched to the new adjectives or because it is a conscious choice to use Macedonian as an adjective instead of “of North Macedoni”. I do not have the time to argue the obvious but if the point of this is to force a POV with dubious procedures then I am not participating in the discussion. You can register my strong complaints regarding your methodology. —Michail (blah) 11:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel that way. Actually, the argument was brought up in the discussion below. It actually goes both ways: you also cannot prove that sources before 12/02 which used "North Macedonian" will consistently continue to use it, especially after familiarizing themselves with the details of the Prespa Agreement, and the Government of North Macedonia stating its official position. We can only list the media as they are using it right now. We can set the date earlier but it wouldn't be NPOV to ommit those who were using 'Macedonian' and only list those who were using 'North Macedonian'. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * @Michail, I was the one that insisted on the starting day being the day of the official announcement. I explained my process of thought below, and I firmly believe that it is inline with WP:NAMECHANGES. If you want my personal preference, I would like, no scrap that, love the "North Macedonian" to be the term we use. If you follow the reports on the same media (even on the same article sometimes) you will see that the editors are not consistent. Euronews, for example, has used both forms. As other people have pointed, media that used the term "North Macedonian" before 12/02 and use it again after 12/02 will be added ASAP. I went through the entries you pointed out, and added alarms for new articles from those outlets in anticipation of using the term again. But until they actually do, I am opposed to including them. Finally, I plan for this list to be expanded throughout the RFC period. --Despotak (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * While I understand that, this conversation is being forcefully shaped as a choice between Macedonian and North Macedonian, when it is merely to demonstrate that North Macedonian is a viable and used alternative to the lengthier adjective “of North Macedonia” in English”, and started because the same user(s) wanted to stop Wikipedia from using because it is not specified in the agreement. That was the conversation, not “lets use North Macedonian for everything because it is WP:COMMON. —Michail (blah) 13:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that I've been diligently adding both 'Macedonian' and 'North Macedonian' media reports in the media link repository. It's seems to me like an honest, mutually agreed, NPOV way of doing things. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, there a lot of things that I would want to say on this discussion, but I'll try to keep it short and restrict my comments ONLY on methodological issues. I have to admit that I don't have experience on drafting RfCs for wikipedia, and my views are mostly based on my personal experience on research methodology, so please excuse me if any of my comments seem irrelevant or ignorant of wikipedia policies. In research when you want to report accuracy you need to have a set of predetermined criteria that meet the standard of reproducibility. That means that the same results should be able to be obtained by anyone that follows the reported methodology. If this is not possible the study can be rejected as biased. If we don't set a specific set of criteria that should apply for all sources that are included in the media repository, I'm really sorry but I feel that we are failing the criterion of accuracy and we could be accused of bias, thus failing the criterion of neutrality as well. I've been reading carefully all the guidelines that seem to be relevant to this RfC. It seems to me clear that secondary resources are given extra weight after the change. We can argue if that date should be February the 8th (ratification of Prespa agreement by the Greek Parliament), or February the 12th (official implementation of the agreement). But we cannot continue if we don't agree that we need to treat all the sources in an equal and unprejudiced way. After all we can continue debating AFTER the RfC is open, we are not carving rules in stone with this draft anyway. --Argean (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The choice of 12 February was done completely arbitrarily and without discussion. I also don't understand the point of some people trying to prove that "Macedonian" is still being used, which we already know, when the discussion was whether "North Macedonian" or "of North Macedonia" is more popular in English. --Michail (blah) 21:20, 14 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.
 * 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.
 * The only references to Macedonian are regarding the Denar and the language. Dubious that this should be in your list.
 * This article also says "oh behalf of the parliament and people of North Macedonia ".
 * This article uses its only reference of "Macedonian" for a picture of Dimitrov on February 6. Dubious historical usage.
 * The FAP article also uses 'Macedonia' as the country name, so I'm not entirely sure they have 'switched' yet.
 * 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. --Michail (blah) 21:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this going to be addressed? --Michail (blah) 18:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

United Nations Remark on Adjectives
North Macedonia UN Term '''NOTE: The adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities as well as private entities and actors that are related to the State, are established by law, and enjoy financial support from State for activities abroad shall be in line with its official name or its short name, that is "of the Republic of North Macedonia" or "of North Macedonia". Other adjectival references, including "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may not be used in all of the above cases.'''

'''Other adjectival usages, including those referring to private entities and actors, that are not related to the State and public entities, are not established by law and do not enjoy financial support from the State for activities abroad may be "Macedonian". The adjectival usage for activities may also be "Macedonian". This is without prejudice to the process established by the Final Agreement regarding commercial names, trademarks and brand names and to the compound names of cities that exist at the date of the signature of the Final Agreement.''' --Macedonicus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Snow close of housekeeping section
just WP:SNOW closed the housekeeping section. I have undone the close, as I don't think it meets ArbCom's requirements of 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. If we get clarification that a similar close is valid, then feel free to undo my edit. Danski454 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've restored it. When ArbComm asked for a month long RfC and a panel there was a long running naming dispute. Everyone in real life has reached a compromise and it is not contentious for Wikipedia to follow it. WP:IAR applies and other principles. Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The motion putting in this procedure came in June 2018, after the Prespa Agreement, so after the RL compromise was reached.


 * And the whole point of including this section was to get a change through that met the Arbcom requirement - because while the intergovernmental dispute is resolved, there are lots of people who didn't agree with the choice. That's why, in this case, process is important.


 * And there is no need to close this section early. All the provisions are already being used in practice, whether we want them to be or not.  That's why WP:MOSMAC has a header asking editors to apply discretion in this case.


 * As such, if you insist on retaining the snow close after barely 30 hours (let alone 30 days), I suggest that you go to Arbcom and ask them to ratify your decision. Kahastok talk 22:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t insist on retaining the snow close but I would value editors input as to whether or not it’s a good idea to file a request for amendment/clarification that modified or lifts altogether the 30-day/3-closer restriction. I note that the underlying RM had overwhelming consensus and this RfC doesn’t appear to be contentious. I don’t mind writing the filing but only if others think that doing so would be helpful. Leviv&thinsp;ich 23:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A day after this has opened is too quick. The RfC hasn't even had enough time to auto-list in the various RfC categories. --Michail (blah) 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we need either an unclose or an Arbcom endorsement. At the moment this is closed, due to User:Legacypac's revert.  If it remains closed and there is no Arbcom motion allowing the close, we cannot then claim to have the level of consensus we need to make the required changes to WP:MOSMAC.
 * WP:IAR is all very well, but I feel it distinctly unwise to rely on it to resolve one of the most contentious disputes in Wikipedia history. Kahastok talk 23:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the housekeeping section should be reopened. Concur with above.  --Michail (blah) 00:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is true. I also agree with . &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  03:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I’m ok with whatever the consensus is but it’s not my place to unclose anymore. Leviv&thinsp;ich 04:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I unclosed it. I will not close this discussion nor take any further action in this matter without consensus. I recommend we either place a notice up to not close any section of the RfC or file for a arbcom clarification.&#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  05:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Bold or Italics for explaining our votes?
We use Bold for the votes themselves, but I thought Italics is more approriate for explaining our votes? The issue isn't important, but I have seen cases where editors, in past RfCs, used bold on keywords that contradicted their votes, causing confusion when votes were being counted after the RfC ended. Shouldnt we just use italics if we wanted to emphasize any keywords when explaining our votes? I shall clarify that, thus far, no inapropriate uses of bold for explaining the votes were detected, so all good. However I am bringing this to everyone's attention, just in case. -- &#10047; SilentResident &#10047; (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. For making this the standard for this RfC. (If it comes up.) &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  20:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The Panel of Three Users
So, according to the procedure we are following, a Panel of Three Uninvolved Contributors is needed to eventually close this thing. How are we going to decide who those people are going to be when we get to that point?

It obviously can't be anyone who voted in the RfC, but what about people who helped draft in the Talk page?

Are we going to elect these three individuals, or should that remain unclear until the closing process has begun? I am quite unsure about that. The Arbitration Committee selected the first admin last time, but they left no clear guidance for us this time on who it should be (except that it didn't have to be all admins). &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  21:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait until the RfC has closed, and it should be people who are completely uninvolved in my opinion. --Michail (blah) 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * My thought was that we should recruit them at WP:AN maybe a week before we finish, so that they're able to close when they're ready. WP:AN not because we require admins (we don't), but because it's a central place where people are likely to notice the request. Kahastok talk 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , if that is the case, would you say I might as well participate? I have not actually done so. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  21:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Panel-forming is typically done the way Kahastok describes, by asking for volunteers at WP:AN; see for a recent example the thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, recruit closer from WP:AN (at least for the lead overseer). - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , oh! Thank you for that link; That was definitely something worth me checking out! :D &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖

New common name
I'm surprised there is no question in this RFC about how to update the usage guidelines in Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)? Clearly now that the WP:OFFICALNAME has changed, all references to "Republic of Macedonia" should be changed to either "Republic of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia" (except for historical references obviously). However, there should be a discussion on whether "Macedonia" (without the North) should continue to be used as the WP:COMMONNAME for the state, for example "to refer to the country in all other articles in contexts where this is practically unambiguous". Macedonia has been the common name for the state throughout the dispute, but could not be used for the article title due to ambiguity with the region. However, in text it has always been used were unambiguous. Now that the offical name has changed, it's not clear whether the common name will likewise change, and if this usage requirement should therefore be changed. I have no view either way, as I think we'll need to wait to see how usage adapts to the change, but think there should be a question addressing this point on the RFC. TDL (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is covered by North Macedonia and Republic of North Macedonia should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in articles about the present in the housekeeping section. I do not think the common name is in dispute, as almost no news sites consistently use Macedonia anymore. Danski454 (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Demonym
What about Demonym? This is not identical to nationality, ethnic group etc. It can be an inhabitant , an expat eg New Yorker or even product Scotch Whisky. So it could be ie North Macedonian Football team, North Macedonian wine I propose the following options: --Stevepeterson (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A: Macedonian
 * Option B: North Macedonian
 * Option C: Any of the two depending of the case
 * This is covered by the adjective section. --Michail (blah) 19:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Restructuring the media links section to avoid clutter and repetition
I would like to propose that the media links section is reordered so that all articles by the same source are shown in this fashion: Example News ( (by AP),, (by AFP), inconsistent  see below). This will group all the articles in clusters of source, and eliminate the "published on" tag which takes up space and is not immediately relevant. --Michail (blah) 21:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this idea, you have my *Support. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm also adding and International organizations subsection, as the UN published their official guidelines. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Unfortunately I do not have the time today to do this, so someone else will have to take the initiative. That was also my reasoning behind asking for the news agencies. I do not know if we should only include the primary source (AP, Reuters, AFP, Xinhua, etc.) for those reports, or continue listing each reproduction separately. In any case, I believe that news agencies should be at the start of each list, due to the wide reach and influence they have. As for the dates, my reasoning was to see if there is a change in reporting as the days pass. Lastly, about the UN directive, sure, add it up. But be careful that it only defines the state-entities adjective. for all other adjectival uses, it only makes the term "Macedonian" allowable but not compulsory. --Despotak (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. The currency designation is now "North Macedonia denar". Does that point to a possible change in the ISO? --Despotak (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The media repository needs to be reorganized asap, because people have lost completely the plot. They keep posting numerous reproductions of the same article and a user was almost banned yesterday for edit warring, failing to understand the instructions. Vast majority of the sources come from Associated Press, Agence France-Presse and Reuters, plus some local press agencies, and almost 70-80% of the listed articles are just reproductions of the initial reports. I spent some time clustering them together, but still I realize it's impossible to check if every source that is being added every day because it has just appeared on google search, is just a reproduction of the ones already posted. My opinion is we should include from now on only the initial secondary sources and request the editors to search for the initial report by AP, AFP, or other agency, when they locate a source on the web. Or we can separate them in two different categories if we are still fine with including reproductions. Let me know what your thoughts are. By the way we have dropped the dates right? --Argean (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. I think we should: a) put major news agencies first and just state 'as reproduced by' (only external links, not internal links to every local news outlet) and b) not sure about this, but we might as well omit the publication date. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ... Am I mistaken to assume that we're being just lazy to go and delete all the unnecessary publishing dates? :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've had a ton of deadlines at university and been doing things on campus instead of working from home, so I've not had the time really. If it can wait, I'm relatively free from Thursday onward. --Michail (blah) 23:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically we need to do the overall restructuring, but I'm afraid I don't have the time either to do it during the weekdays. --Argean (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Did some clean-up last days - deleting the publication dates. Do we really need the Country section? If so, why? --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, that makes sense. In my turn I would like to suggest
 * To make a subsection that will include all the articles that don't cluster in any of the categories that we have, i.e. objects, other inanimate entities, and abstract concepts. Examples: North Macedonian stock exchange, Macedonian film.
 * To include articles from sources in languages other than English, but still neutral, i.e. not Greek, nor Macedonian. I'm sure we can find some good reliable sources in French, German, or Spanish for example. --Argean (talk)
 * I've already added other adjectival usage section, feel free to add them there. I'm against adding non-English media reports because this is after all the English language Wikipedia. However, adding non-English international organizations or state entities might be a good idea. --FlavrSavr(talk) 11:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is why the "Other proposals" section exists, for a space for more votes to be opened up on related matters, if need be. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, you are correct reminding me that this is English wikipedia. And thanks for adding the new section for adjectives! --Argean (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops the above comment was meant to address to, so thanks for the subsection..! --Argean (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps being a bit off-topic here, but isn't border, state-related, ? In the same way authorities is state, not people related? --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it is, since it's definitely controlled by the state. I was expecting people to challenge it though, thus I placed it there. Feel free to move it. --Argean (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We're getting to the finer points here. I'm glad that we all agree that border is state-related, especially when used in line with the country's border with Greek Macedonia. The same way, I would argue that the flag is state-related. However, Macedonian or North Macedonian city is just an adjectival usage, because as the RfC is structrured we're discussing not only various adjectival usages, but also the territory or the topography - the Macedonian / North Macedonian countryside being the example given. Whether media will prefer the one or the other adjective to denote cities, villages, mountains, countryside is the crux of this section. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that the border should be treated the same way as a city, or a mountain. I have voted C for adjectival usage, because, as I said when the RfC was being drafted, adjectives essentially boil down to two categories, one state related and one culture related. It's the same way we would use the terms "Bengali" for the culture and wider area and "Bangladeshi" for the country. The border between India and Pakistan is the "Bangladeshi" border, because it relates to the state, and is part of the wider region of the Bengal. Same thing happens for North Macedonia, the border between it and Greece is the "North Macedonian", because it relates to the state, and in either side of it you are in Macedonia. A city refers to the state, not to the culture or wider region, therefore it should also be counted as a state-associated entity. So while a "Macedonian" city could either mean a city in the wider area of Macedonia, or a city inhabited by ethnic Macedonians, a city in North Macedonia should be called a "North Macedonian" city. This is still in analogy with Bangladesh, where a city in it is called "Bangladeshi", while a city inhabited by ethnic Bengalis or in the wider region of the Bengal is called "Bengali". --Antondimak (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh the finer points... These adjectives will bother us for a long time, I bet on it. It's pretty clear to all of us I guess that borders are indeed "state-related" since they are not natural geographical features, but created by states to define their legal territory. On the other hand mountains, rivers, "the countryside" have always been there and will be independently of states and countries, and fall into this vague definition of territory included in Article 7. So, we can definitely say the "North Macedonian" and the "Greek" side of borders, but we wouldn't really use the phrase the "North Macedonian" and the "Greek" (or the "Greek Macedonian") side of Kaimakchalan. But again that depends on the context, and I think the same applies to the cities, depending on if you are talking about the people who live there, or what state controls it. After all I think we don't really have to use adjectives where we can avoid it. The fastest way to start a war in Middle East would be to put an adjective before Jerusalem. A "city in North Macedonia" is fine enough and serves also the goal of disambiguation. Since we are getting to these finer points, I really want to go to an adjective-related issue that it's still quite ill-defined, and lies somewhere between the state/culture dichotomy. On what criteria we will define which nouns fall under the definition of culture/language/ethnicity, that is uncontested housekeeping as "Macedonian", and are clearly not state related, especially if we decide to use "North Macedonian" for people and all adjectives? I mean is it "Macedonian folk music" for obvious reasons, but "North Macedonian pop music" because it is commercial and not only ethnic Macedonian? Is it a "North Macedonian newspaper" because it is published in North Macedonia, but a "Macedonian book" because it is written in Macedonian language? --Argean (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I envision that too. On the point of cities, with most cities in North Macedonia being multiethnic, I sincerely doubt that a medium that chooses one adjective over the other will use for example "Macedonian" city Ohrid (being predominantly ethnically Macedonian), but "North Macedonian" city Tetovo (being predominantly ethnically Albanian). It just doesn't make sense. As far as the people go, despite the ethnic agrument constantly brought up - regardless of ethnicity the people in North Macedonia wouldn't be especially thrilled to bo called "North Macedonian". For example, I think that NBA star Cedi Osman, being a proud Turkish Macedonian (he recently wore sneakers bearing both countries' flags) - would be incensed to learn that he is "North Macedonian" on Wikipedia. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * River and mountains may exist without the state, but when referring to them with a country-related adjective, you are referring to a property given by the state. Since it's in North Macedonia, it would obviously in my opinion be a "North Macedonian" mountain. About cities, we don't refer to cities as North Macedonian when they don't have an ethnic Macedonian majority and Macedonian when they do. We call them North Macedonia always, unless we specifically want to stress the characted of the city as a historical and cultural Macedonian settlement. I think the Bengali parallel helps here, or either North Korea for that matter. A city in North Korea is "North Korean", but only if you want to stress its ethnic character, or portray it as part of the wider region, then you use "Korean". The exact same practice applies to North Macedonia. --Antondimak (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally the only use for an adjective before a geographic locale within wikipedia that I can think of is the Lists of... (mountains, rivers, cities, etc), where we can use the "of North Macedonia" to make our life easier. The remark that the selection of adjectives depends on the context when referring to geographic locale, including cities, was a general observation that this selection ("Macedonian" vs "North Macedonian") might be different for various sources, depending on what their content and target audience are. So for example a news agency might encompass the term "North Macedonian" when referring to cities much faster compared to media that are interested more in cultural and historic aspects or in individual people stories. There is no textbook on what term they should select, because this is not dictated by the agreement, regardless what most of us would expect to happen. Name changes might take time to catch on, and although I anticipate that for official institutions this should happen rather quickly, I'm not sure what will happen for other uses especially when these secondary sources consider the name a. of the country, b. of the people, c. of the language, and at least for a and c we already know that these names will be different. There are a lot more terms, than the ones referring only-to-state or only-to-culture, in peoples' everyday activities and I can't see the process of drawing the line between Macedonian and North Macedonian, being such an easy and straightforward task. --Argean (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Being a multicultural state, I think the safe choice is to use the term "North Macedonian". To be fair, a "Macedonian" identity didn't really exist for long before the modern state, so the only really ambiguous instance I can think of is the SFR Macedonia. --Antondimak (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Most ethnic Macedonians that I know would be triggered by your statement, but I'm not. Actually, it's a fascinating study of how ethnic/national identities develop. It began somewhere in the late 19th century, was having hard times in Ottoman era during competing national narratives of already developed nation-states (Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian) and it finally had some definite form in the 1930s. So, yes it's 'artificial', but not more 'artificial' than other ethnicities, only better documented and contested. I think that if we run a genetic test in the whole of the Macedonia (region) or even in the Balkans, we would find that we're more similar than we could imagine. Moreover, we're culturally very similar, this sort of warm half Mediterranean / half Ottoman mentality. It's a shame that we're divided by these issues. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for style guides
Since people are looking anyway, can I direct them toward formal style guides please?

As I've said on several name change discussions recently, for me a style guide is a far stronger source than a simple instance of usage. The instance of usage is the choice of a single journalist or editor who may or may not understand the naming issues and who may or may not be following a house style that may or may not exist.

A style guide documents the policy of the organisation and inidcates that the organisation has made a conscious choice as to what name and what adjective to use. Chances are, most publications haven't updated their guides yet, but if they do it'll be useful to reference them. Kahastok talk 12:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * you have my Support to do this. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The UN published their term guides today, which I think is the reliable source carrying the biggest weight. As far as journals and news agencies go: Do you know of any style guide publicly available? Usually those are internal? AFAIK, the only publicly available style guide is that of New Europe, which is (a) biased because of the owner and the editorial team being almost entirely Greek and (b) inconsistent because its journalists still not being sure what will „catch on“. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There are a few British ones I know of online - the Guardian, BBC News and Telegraph, and I'm certain that there are others. Chances are an Amazon search will find more that are available as books.  Unfortunately, the ones I've checked - including those three - have not been updated yet. Kahastok talk 14:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Can't wait for them, actually. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

MFA North Macedonia Recommendations for the Media
Media Guidelines:

"PRESPA AGREEMENT – MEDIA GUIDELINES

Considering the recent change of the official name of North Macedonia, we would like to provide you with a guide to writing about our country in accordance with the Prespa Agreement. We kindly ask that you use the following terms:

The official name of the country: “Republic of North Macedonia”; Short name: “North Macedonia”.

Nationality (citizenship): Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. Official language: “Macedonian language”. Country codes: MK and MKD. The adjective “Macedonian” is to be used when relating to ethnic and cultural identity of the people, our language, history, culture, heritage, territory and other attributes. Such terms in this context are distinctly different from those used and related to the region of Macedonia in Greece. Correct examples: Macedonian ethnic identity; Macedonian language; Macedonian culture; Macedonian territory; Macedonian people; Macedonian history, Macedonian mountains; Macedonian literature; the Macedonian Cyrillic alphabet; Macedonian food; Macedonian churches etc.

Incorrect: Other adjectival references, including “North Macedonian”, “Northern Macedonian”, “N. Macedonian” and “NorthMacedonian”, should not be used.

The adjectival reference for the State, its official organs and other public entities as well as private entities and actors that are related to the State, are established by law, and enjoy financial support from State for activities abroad, should be: “of the Republic of North Macedonia” or “of North Macedonia”. Correct examples for State, its official organs and other public entities: Government of the Republic of North Macedonia; President of North Macedonia; Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of North Macedonia; North Macedonia’s Defence Minister; North Macedonia’s Municipality of Ohrid; the University of St.” Cyril and Methodius” of North Macedonia

Incorrect: Other adjectival references, including “North Macedonian”, “Macedonian”, “Northern Macedonian”, “N. Macedonian” and “NorthMacedonian”, should not be used in all of the above cases.

The adjectival reference for activities may also be “Macedonian”. Correct examples: The Macedonian Economy; the Health sector of the Republic of North Macedonia; Macedonian Art; Macedonian Music; Macedonian Agriculture; Macedonian Architecture; the Food Industry of North Macedonia etc.

Incorrect: Other adjectival references, including “North Macedonian”, “Northern Macedonian”, “N. Macedonian” and “NorthMacedonian”, should not be used in all of the above cases."

______________________________________________

Q&A on the Prespa Agreement:

"On 14 February 2019, following an agreement with Greece, the name of our country changed. You can read the agreement here. Still, exactly how to describe us can be confusing! What follows is an explanation of what we have agreed in Prespa and how to describe us, our country and our institutions:

North Macedonia Made Simple

Q: What exactly is the correct name of your country now?

A: Officially we are now the Republic of North Macedonia, though just North Macedonia is fine. Be careful though: We are not Northern Macedonia.

Q: So are your citizens North Macedonians now?

A: No! They are of course Macedonian citizens and citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia, but otherwise it is absolutely correct to describe ethnic Macedonians simply as Macedonians, without the adjective “North”. And actually don’t use the term North Macedonian at all, but we will get to that.

Q: But surely your languageis North Macedonian now?

A: No. It is just Macedonian, exactly as it was before the agreement with Greece.

Q: I need to know your country codes. Have they changed?

A: No. They remain the same as before: MK and MKD.

Q: I am going to write a story about food in your country. Should I talk about North Macedonian cuisine?

A: No. When describing anything related to our ethnic or cultural identity the adjective Macedonian alone is correct while North or Northern Macedonian would be wrong. Some correct examples include: Macedonian culture, Macedonian history, Macedonian literature, the Macedonian Cyrillic alphabet, Macedonian churches, Macedonian ethnic identity and so on. Bear in mind however, Macedonia and Macedonians, mean something distinctly different in Greece.

Q: So, if I have lunch with your president what should I say?

A: Good point! You would be correct to say that the President of North Macedonia served you a lunch of delicious Macedonian specialties. It would not be correct to say that you had lunch with the North Macedonian president.

Q: This is confusing! Why is he or she the President of North Macedonia but not the North Macedonian president while your food is just Macedonian?

A: As part of the deal with Greece we have agreed not to describe any state body as North Macedonian. Anything connected to the state, the government, the presidency, private entities and actors related to the state or activities financed by the state abroad will use the adjective North but it is not necessary to use it otherwise, for example for food. So, our country is run by the Government of North Macedonia, our head of state is the President of North Macedonia, foreign affairs are run by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia and so on. North Macedonia should also be used for all other official bodies too, for example, local municipalities and Saints Cyril and Methodius University. For example: “Tetovo is a municipality in North Macedonia where it is common to hear people speak in either Macedonian or Albanian. Likewise: “Saints Cyril and Methodius University is the oldest university in North Macedonia. I went there to do an interview about the Macedonian economy.” Again, be careful – not North Macedonian. Yes, it is complicated, but it took us 27 years to get to this agreement!

Q: Does the United Nations know about all this?

A: Of course! We notified them officially and everything described here is officially lodged with them here."

--Macedonicus (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Small notes pointing to Media Link Repository?
It's been 10 days since the beginning of this RfC and the Media Link Repository has grown steadily. It's still a bit messy, but with international organizations, governmental organizations and reference websites (such as Britannica) weighing in, contributors can have at least some idea about current usage of the respective terms in reliable sources and not base their decision primarily on crystal balling. Contributors, apart from their knowledge of Wikipedia policies, should always look for reliable sources to guide their decisions, since this is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. So my proposal is to add small notes before or after the nationality, adjective for state-associated entites and other adjectival usage, for example For current adjectival usage of respective terms for state-associated entities see the reliable sources list. Do you support or oppose this? --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, this makes sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook
I've seen references citing the The World Factbook on North Macedonia which was updated a week ago (February 19) removed from the media section because it was 'obviously not a conscious choice' to refer to the nationality as Macedonian(s) and other sections were not updated. The assumption here is that the government agency did a sloppy work. This might be the case, but how can we know for certain? They might have left it because they refer to N. Macedonia anachronistically or for some other reason. The facts remain that a) it was updated post Feb.12 and b) now the CIA World Factbook refers to the nationality as 'Macedonian(s)'. They might change it in the future into 'North Macedonian' and then we should update accordingly. They might add the 'citizen of North Macedonia' part and then we should update accordingly. They might not update it for a long time. IMHO, 'obviously not a conscious choice' is just an assumption and we cannot dismiss a reliable source just because of that. I might argue that the Kingdom of Netherlands did not make 'a conscious choice' (maybe they didn't receive the memo from the MFA?) when it referred to the people as 'North Macedonian nationals', but not knowing that, I did not remove that source, or other sources. And in fact, they changed the reference in less than 24 hours, it seems. What are your thoughts? --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah, I have to agree with the others here who objected to citing it. The text as a whole has evidently not been updated at all. It still uses plain "Macedonia" as the country name throughout the text (except in the new headings), including in sentences in the present tense that evidently refer to the present time. It also still describes the naming conflict in pre-Prespa terms, without any reference to the recent changes. The contradictions between the text body and the headings makes it clear that this is a preliminary state of editing; it's quite inconceivable that it will remain like that in the long run. The Factbook has a weekly update routine, so maybe we'll just have to wait for one or two more iterations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, I actually think is a good assumption, however, isn't it just an equally good assumption that, for example, the USAID did an equally sloppy work and just added 'North' to every adjectival use of 'Macedonian'? It certainly happened with the Dutch, the British and the US Embassy in Skopje. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are that it really doesn't matter very much one way or another, it is just one source out of multitudes of RSs that we have now. It can be ignored or included and it will not make much difference. Fussing over a single source just nit-picking. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Guess I've entered a nit-picking spiral. I'm not usually like that but I've seen users quoting metadata to discredit a source. :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And IMO, I have a feeling that the dust has not settled completely yet (but it will, soon or later), and thus, we have to be abit more patient with sources being erratic, inconsistent, and inaccurate with the use of the terms. After all, countries don't change names everyday. Time and patience is the key. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, I was little taken aback when I've met such enthusiasm to start the RfC and to „decide“ the new terminology, even before the UN received the notification and decided on their own terminology. The name dispute is/was a complex issue, it is sensitive, it had serious political implications especially in North Macedonia (as witnessed by the rise & fall of nationalist and authoritarian Nikola Gruevski) and it took almost three decades to make this step. Interestingly, I'm under the impression that Wikipedians from the region were not in any kind of haste to start the RfC. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that Wikipedians from the region were not in any kind of haste to start the RfC. Oh you noticed too? If you want my opinion, the lack of enthousiasm among Wikipedians of Balkan origin to start the RfC, relates to the same circumstances that contributed to Gruevski's fall and the new political reality in the region. Not sure if this is good or bad, but today Wikipedia is much much more calmer than, lets say, 10 years ago, and I am happy with that. My only concern is IP disruption which may use the conflicting WP:RS to impose their views on terms and wording that have to be used in Wikipedia's articls related to Macedonia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was actually active in the 2005/6 Macedonian Slavs / ethnic Macedonian naming dispute and I definitely know what you mean. Wikipedia didn't have the infrastructure of policies it has now (that were consensually built by the community in the meanwhile, just like the contents!), so the most evident solution to end an edit war for an administrator back then was to create a 'poll' (the precursor of RfCs). I warned against it and turned out to be right - it was one of the most shameful events in Wikipedia history, with ethnic-based voting hitting record highs. Perhaps luckily - it ended up a „draw“ and then the dispute went to the second phase, which was mediation. The entire dispute went on for about 8 months and the Greek side eventually decided it doesn't want to go to Arbitration. Meanwhile, crafty administrators inspired by the events decided to create the Naming conflict policy that eventually during the following decade was somehow split/evolved into several policies - the most notable being WP:TITLE of course, but the essence of that preterite policy is best captured by WP:MOSIDENTITY, WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME. All these events led to me to write one of the first presentations on Systemic bias - presented at one of the first European Wikipedia conferences in Belgrade (2006). I have the same uneasy feeling now - that this RfC was structured badly, ignoring important policies for the sake of expediency and will likely result in more problems than solutions. The greatest paradox of this RfC is that, although everybody seems to agree that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we're encouraging contributors to do just that: predict and decide on that prediction, without waiting for WP:RS to settle in. --FlavrSavr (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTALBALL, and uses WP:RS to reflect on content. However problem is: WP:RS appear ot be using both terms for the time being. To avoid potential problems, editors have to form a consensus to keep the articles tidy and agree on some basic rules regarding the use of terms to avoid edit wars and disputes over them. The idea for a RfC wasn't proposed by me, but by almost everyone here, and I agree this has to happen soon or later, instead of letting the issue drag on without a consensus which would be counter-productive. The RfC cannot wait for much longer, I am afraid, as the dust over the term usage may take quite some time to settle down, and we can't predict how long that will take before a RfC is eventually to be called. Plus, from past experience, sticking solely on Wikipedia's rules (for WP:COMMONNAME for example) didn't exactly resolve every issue and this is why WP:CONSENSUS was needed to deal with issues regarding the disambiguity of the terms and other technical issues. It was that consensus that brought an everlasting stability to the project (besides the usual IP disruptors). I don't have a definite answer on when and what is best to be done, but I wouldn't like having this issue left in limbo. But nevertheless, I understand your points. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In the RfC  mentioned the principle of conservative Wikipedia usage (don't force a change unless there's clear evidence that usage outside Wikipedia has also changed). I think it's a good principle. We may or may not agree that the world was right to have used the term 'Macedonian' pre-Feb 12 to refer to the nationality, state-related entities and so on, but according to WP:NPOV it's actually not Wikipedia's business to decide who's right or wrong but rather to report on it - Wikipedia being descriptive, not presriptive. We are ignoring the fact that up until very recently 'Macedonian' was almost exclusively the WP:COMMONNAME. We drew an arbitrary line on Feb.12 and decided to simply ignore all past usage, although I'd argue that common name = past usage + current usage. But even after February 12, while it is true that WP:RS use both terms and even some other terms, these are not divided equally among the sections, and also sources don't carry the same weight. It may be said that state-related entities are referred by both terms almost equally by media, however most official usage is avoiding the adjectival form altogether. Other adjectival usage: too early to tell, but I see the conservative trend of using "Macedonian" more often (except for the territory maybe, like in the case of Britannica), and then you have the official sources like UN suggesting that "Macedonian" may be used, the position of North Macedonia that "North Macedonian" shouldn't be used, and the position of Greece (or some sources) that "Macedonian" may be used, but also "North Macedonia" may be used, as well. And then you have the nationality issue that I could defend only on WP:MOSIDENTITY basis with zero official use of "North Macedonian(s)", Britannica strongly weighing in on "Macedonian" for all biographical articles and only "North Macedonians" in passing, and media usage of "North Macedonian" restricted to the likes of Gulf Times and Greek Reporter. Sorry, but I don't think that editors were guided by WP:RS at all, as reliable source(s) can be: ignored or included and it will not make much difference. There's a strong impulse to be prescriptive here, as suddenly people finding out they are "confused" by "ambigious" terms such as "Macedonian". --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You may not agree that the world was right to have used the term 'Macedonian' pre-Feb 12 to refer to the nationality, state-related entities and so on Huh? I haven't made this statement or expressed such a position. You may have confused me for a far-right nationalist? Contrary, I didn't care which terms the world used prior to 12 February, nor I will post-date as I believe in self-determination of people. I don't know what made you believe this, but I do not have problem with the term "Macedonian". Have you come to this conclusion just from looking at my RfC votes? FYI, in the RfC, whatever options I voted, wasn't for "being against term Macedonian", but only due to personal concerns over the term's ambiguity since, in the past centuries, the term Macedonian used to mean mostly the geographical, or the Greek/ancient Greek elements, not the Slavic, while nowadays it can mean all these 4 elements, which, Wikipedia has adequately addressed/is trying to address through its concise policies and consensus. Please be polite and retract on this statement immediatelly, it is very offensive when someone puts words to my mouth. :( --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean you personally, I meant is more like a we, as Wikipedians, so I changed it. My point is that a lot of contributors (not you personally, at all), seem to have taken a prescriptive, rather than descriptive approach on this issue. A constant point that is raised, for example, is that "people confuse nationality with ethnicity". Well, if we here confuse the both terms, how do we expect the average reader not to confuse them? And moreover, this alleged "confusion" doesn't seem to be shared by the vast majority of reliable sources? Sorry again If I have accidentally offended you. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe things can be much more simpler than that, if we describe the ethnicity and ethnic groups by how they self-determine themselves (such as Macedonians, Macedonian people, Macedonian minority, etc) independently and separately from their nationality, or a collective reference such as legal members of the North Macedonian state, such as Macedonian nationals of North Macedonia / North Macedonian citizens or North Macedonian nationality. I mean, the same is the case about the Greek Macedonians. Although they have a regional idendity as Macedonians, they are Greek nationals, of Greece, or Greek citizens. This is just my opinion. Sorry if I am not of much help here, but the RS used both terms, and it is up to editors to decide which terms are more descriptive of the nationality of people. For certain we can't use both terms, we have to chooce one or the other and each term has its pros and cons. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to push this thing further, I'd just like to stress that while it is true that both terms were used by RS, these mentions have unequal weight - WP:UNDUE. It is not same to see a "North Macedonian" reference in Gulf Times and a "Macedonian national" reference in an official UK governmental website. And then you have the majority of sources clearly referring to "Macedonians" regardless of their ethnicity. NBA is referring to Cedi Osman as "Macedonian" (he's an ethnic Turk), and English websites reporting about the Premier League continued to refer to Ezgjan Alioski as "Macedonian" (he's an ethnic Albanian). --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't really want to stir up the issue again, but CIA's World Factbook has been updated once more today to include all the recent developments after the implementation of Prespa agreement and removed all present references to "Republic of Macedonia", but still lists the nationality as "Macedonian(s)". We might want to wait for one more week though, because it still uses the term "Macedonia" many times throughout the text (most are past references though), but we might need to consider the possibility that indeed this has been a conscious choice after all. --Argean (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should. They might continue to use Macedonia anachronistically for a long time after the name change. We are including a single mention of "North Macedonian police certificate" as a reference that the entire Government of Canada made a conscious choice to refer to the state as "North Macedonian", but we are in doubt that a twice updated CIA World Factbook made a conscious choice? This doesn't strike me as reasonable, or fair, at all. If they make another update, we should include those updates as well, but until then I don't see why we shouldn't include it. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FlavrSavr, I understand what you are saying, that Macedonian is a more common name per WP:COMMONNAME, but still, what you are missing out here is that Wikipedia's editors are called to choose a term while taking in account multiple factors, besides WP:COMMONNAME. After all, WP:COMMONNAME isn't meant to bypass other issues and or to be followed blindly and override all of Wikipedia's other policies. If that was the case here, then the country article today wouldn't been renamed North Macedonia but simply Macedonia (not even Republic of Macedonia), replacing the disabiguation page. And even the current RfC shouldn't have been initiated in the first place and instead, chase for RS and calculate which term is used by the majority of the RS. Now, regarding "Macedonian" it can mean, besides the ethnic idendity of some people, also the adjective for people besides the ethnic group, and or the geographic idendity of other groups in the neighboring countries, and thats why editors will need be careful which shortened form they choose for the nationality. The official term is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia", yet the RfC gives us 2 options to choose from, although none of which are official: the one short form has heavy use besides meaning many different things among others and being closer to the country's old name, while the other short form has no heavy use yet is closer to the country's new name. We will need wait what will be the consensus.
 * So far the biggest challenge of the RfC is its "Nationality" section where a large ammount of editors voted using invalid arguments that "Macedonian" is in line with Prespa Agreement while it is not, which makes their votes questionable. Wikipedia's rules are very clear in that, when a consensus is determined, it is not solely about the number of voters, but also about which option had supporters with the most clear and consistent arguments in their voice of support. My impression is the whole RfC will pass except Nationality section which may require a new RfC of its own, with a more clear wording for the question agreed among the organizers, that would leave no room for potential problems of this kind, such as misinformation/misunderstanding, from happen again. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I quoted at least five Wikipedia policies that apply for "Macedonian(s)": WP:OFFICIALNAMES, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:MOSIDENTITY & WP:CRYSTAL. While you dispute WP:OFFICIALNAMES (it is official, in the sense that Macedonian/citizen of NM is IMHO, divisible + article 7.3 + governmental websites, ex. UK Government), the other policies still apply. Exactly zero of the policies apply for "North Macedonian(s)". --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * For me the only invalid argument that I have seen being used in the "Nationality section" is WP:COMMONSENSE, because it basically cancels the very need for WP:CONSENSUS and defies the WP:ARBMAC decisions. All the other arguments are perfectly in line with the rules that were set before the RfC started. I can't see why we are still talking about the wording, since it is pretty obvious that the main issue is the problematic structure that doesn't allow background information to be available for every section. And I also don't understand why we are still stuck with legal definitions, since it's pretty much obvious, per WP:UKNATIONALS and numerous other examples, that wikipedia does not use legal definitions to describe people, but names that are consistent with WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:MOSIDENTITY. "North Macedonians" is basically an WP:OR term that has next to zero validity to be applied according to any wikipedia rules available. --Argean (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Guys, first of all, I am not here to argue with you about "North Macedonians", and I do not care about what your opinion is on this or the other term, nor I am expecting that you will finally acknowledge that none of the two terms (including "Macedonians") is as valid as you may believe, since you seem quite biased in your statements in favor of "Macedonian". Yes, sorry to say it, but you are not aware how biased you are looking, given how you are directing/focusing your criticism to much to just only the one of the two terms, instead of both terms, and there is no other description for this but biased opinion. It is understandable, but I do not wish to be participant in a such discussion. In my case, although I have my own views, I prefer to be honest and dare to acknowledge that both terms (yes, even the one I voted for) have pros and cons and I absolutely know that none of the 2 available options for descripting the Nationality are as good as you may believe. You should be aware that none of the RfC's options are without serious cons, which is why you are seing that I am not too hyped about the "nationality" part of the RfC.
 * Second, in my response above to Flavr, I wasn't talking about how good or bad the terms "Macedonian"/"North Macedonian" are, I was referring to the RfC's problem where editors voted citing something that doesn't confirm them (Prespa Agreement). Lets not derail this discussion into another rabble about which term is better or not. This Talk page's purpose is not to argue on terms. This talk page is about the RfC and its information. For discussion on the terms "Macedonian"/"North Macedonian" I'd recommend the section Discussion (Nationality) where more people will be able to access your opinions and comment on them. Not here. This RfC talk page is about the RfC's issues, not about the terminology issues. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 14:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * People have been patiently explaining to you that indeed yes, the Prespa agreement does confirm the point in question. You are in IDHT territory here. If you still disagree, that's of course your prerogative, but don't keep bringing this complaint up as if it was something that still requires debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * People have been patiently explaining to you that indeed yes, the Prespa agreement does confirm the point in question. You are in IDHT territory here. Oh, interesting! You just wrote that Prespa Agreement confirms the term "Macedonian" for nationality. Can you provide me the precise page number or paragraph in the Prespa Agreement which "confirm that point in question"? If you still disagree, that's of course your prerogative, but don't keep bringing this complaint up as if it was something that still requires debate. Incorrect. None was able to explain adequately how does the Prespa Agreement supports the one or the other term. All what the editors did here is to simply repeat their arguments about WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS and WP:UKNATIONALS which find myself agreening with, but that does not explain at all how the terms are in line with the Prespa Agreement. Either we have a case of misinformation or misunderstanding.
 * If you have read the previous discussions on this talk page, other editors too, acknowledged the problems the RfC has, primarily on structure/background information, and proposed ideas which would have helped the editors know better about what they are voting for. And I won't be surprised if there is no clear and solid consensus at the end of the RfC just because the supporters of the one option or the other mistaking it for being in line with the Prespa Agreement and lacked clear and consistent arguments. I am not happy with this. I take it you are unwilling, Future Perfect, to acknowledge these problems and the complaints about the RfC, as long as you are happy with the votes for your preferred term? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 15:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the entire problem was the inclusion of "North Macedonian(s)" as a standalone option, and it being Option A, no more, no less. That's why I opposed it. It is literally WP:OR: at the start of the RfC there wasn't a single source using it, apart from Gulf Times and Greek-POV New Europe. It would have made an entirely different RfC if the options were for example "Macedonian OR citizen of NM". It creates this illusion that there is this big worldwide debate over the nomenclature of the people or some kind of "confusion" or "ambiguity" that will be somehow solved by using "North Macedonian". Such debates exist only in Greece and Greek communities and on this particular Wikipedia RfC, and nowhere else (OK, maybe Quora). I also believe it affects the outcome of the survey in the other, adjectival sections. --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also just FYI: I would gladly change my vote for the Nationality from "North Macedonian" to "Macedonian", if it is confirmed to be the term used for the nationality in the Prespa Agreement. I do not mind, because I wouldn't want myself picking between an official and an unofficial name. Not because of WP:OFFICIALNAMES but because my position was always consistent when it comes to preferring official descriptions over unofficial ones.
 * I checked now the Prespa Agreement but again failed to find "Macedonia" as the term for nationality. If FuturePerfect (or anyone else here) is kind enough to provide me a precise page number/paragraph quote on the purpoted "Macedonian" nationality in the Prespa Agreement's document, then I will appreciate it and gladly change my vote from Option A (North Macedonian) to Option B (Macedonian). However, if the RfC's options are purely unofficial (which I concluded are, since I have read the Prespa Agreement myself so many times), then I will stick with my initial vote, which is to pick the better of two unofficial descriptions for the nationality, in this case, "North Macedonian" nationality, since it is about the nationals of North Macedonia, not the nationals of Macedonia. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this is now literally the "I didn't hear that" strategy. Anyway, no, I'm not going to re-argue that issue in this thread; it's overblown enough as is. If you really want to hear the explanation again, you can come to my talkpage; I'll give it to you, once, but won't be available for any follow-up discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I honestly feel that is completely pointless to keep arguing if we don't have the same understanding of the situation, and I'm sorry to say but your comments keep suggesting to me that this is probably the case here. You made your point pretty clear, you give to the term nationality an official/legal definition and you want to follow that rule to make your decision, which is perfectly fine for me in terms of methodology and I totally respect your decision to do so. I just want to repeat for the last time that I don't share the same understanding of the situation and I raised my concerns on debating official/legal terms even before we started drafting the RfC. It's very clear to me that for now we cannot apply WP:OFFICIALNAME for the nationality and my understanding of wikipedia is that we also don't need to, because I don't think that we are checking peoples' passports to use "correct" terminology for many nationals, such as the British ones, the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Myanma, the Timorense, the Swati, etc. We use WP:COMMONAMES and whenever there is inconsistency we take into account WP:MOSIDENTITY, while we clearly avoid using terms that may constitute WP:OR or WP:CRYSTALBALLing. This is the methodology that I applied for my voting and I find it absolutely consistent with the rules that we set before the RfC started. I don't know why you want to invalidate the whole process because you don't agree with the criteria that other people use to support their arguments, although they are clearly included in the policies that we agreed that we need to take into account to reach a decision (unlike the WP:COMMONSENSE that others use instead). I'm really saddened by the fact that you find it so easy to call others biased and wrong, because they just don't agree with your opinion, while I keep offering a straightforward explanation of the methodology that I applied, and unlike you I care for other peoples opinions especially when they are trying to contribute to WP:CONSENSUS building. --Argean (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * my dear Argean, when will ever this stop? This talk page isn't for discussion about about Macedonian nationality but about the RfC. Like I made it clear to you before: I am not here to discuss about nationality on a talk page that isn't about nationality, This talk page is about the RfC, (which means, we are ought to discuss here about its problems, its sources, and such things). Even this discussion here is titled "CIA World Factbook" and not "Build consensus about nationality of people of North Macedonia". If it was named the latter, then I would simply stay and watch the discussion from the shadows instead of participating unless I had the mood for. After all, there was a reason why I wasn't a very active participant in the RfC's Discussion (nationality) section - at least not as actively as editors like Peace_in_Balkans were - because I didn't have the required energy to do so, and this hasn't improved now. I used to be very active in RfC discussions in the past, which other editors around here can confirm to you, but some unfortunate recent developments in real life, these weeks, had a heavy toll on me. So please forgive me if I am not too enthousiast to participate actively.
 * Second, that you have biased opinion does not mean you have a bad or wrong opinion. Most people have biased opinions about politics and other related things, and I am not an exception to this, and thats absolutely natural. If you feel your opinion isn't biased, then let me quote this wise Greek saying: "Before criticizing the other options and point out to their shortcomings, be prepared to criticize yours first and acknowledge your own option's shortcomings". Thing is, I haven't heard you at all speaking about the negatives of the option B which you have so vocally supported in the RfC, while you went to great efforts to convince me and others that the option A which I supported in the RfC, is problematic. Don't get me wrong but I only partially disagree with you, as I consider both options as being problematic, and, unless my memory fails me, I am not the only editor around here who says that, others too made some very valid points against both options. I am not calling you wrong, because you have some very valid points when criticizing the option I supported, but this doesn't mean you aren't biased. Thing is that your criticism didn't lived up to my expectations in being expanded to include your option as well. Which is what I hoped to see but it didn't happen. If this isn't bias, then my apologies, but how would I call it, if not bias?
 * Really this discussion about nationalities has to be moved to the Discussion (nationality) section instead of being discussed here. It is necessary to put the discussion about sources back to the right track, which is to focuse on the RfC, its issues and the RfC's sources. There is no ongoing consensus building procedure about nationality here on this talk page, but there was a discussion for consensus building on the issue of RfC structure and background info/wording. Perhaps we can continue that discussion if you are interested. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you two stop using this section to bicker like fishwives? This section was supposed to be about a single reference with a low notability. If you wish to continue this back and forth, rather talk about these issues on the main article RfC, or on each other's talk pages if you prefer a one on one discussion. Yes, this goes for you too Argean and Fut.Perf.. Stop encouraging this talk page becoming a 'discussion away from the discussion' discussion. Stick to the layout/structure issues here. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Curses Silent! You just beat me to the punch on that one. :> - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, well said! :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My dearest you opened that issue here that's why I replied here! I agree that this is not the place to argue about content, that's why in my latest comment I focused only in methodology, but it looks that you are not bothered to go into that (btw I didn't mention "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian" not even once in my previous comment!). You instead keep talking about opinions and confusing things, and my instinct says that you do that on purpose. If you are happy to continue the discussion on methodology, please feel free to do that on my talk page. Otherwise, I believe that I have stated my opinions clearly in all questions of the RfC and provided a complete rationale on all of them, if you are interested to read and comment on them. --Argean (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PS. My apologies, the trap was well set and I admit that I fell quite easily into it! --Argean (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (btw I didn't mention "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian" not even once in my previous comment!). You instead keep talking about opinions and confusing things, and my instinct says that you do that on purpose. Nope I wasn't confusing things on purpose. I wasn't just replying specifically to your last post, but generally, by taking in account your previous posts too. But oh well. Speaking of methodologies, I feel obliged to clarify something about the RfC's votes, and especially the part: I don't know why you want to invalidate the whole process because you don't agree with the criteria that other people use to support their arguments. As you see in the other section on this RfC talk page, I haven't disputed any methodologies or whatever. I was pointing out to how, due to lack of background information, editors who may not have updated thesmelves about the terms, may be unaware that none of the two terms are supported by the Prespa Agreement, yet these people voted assuming that the option B does so. Isn't that a problem? Sorry to tell you that, but it is evident that the RfC failed making it clear to them that both options are unofficial. I would wholeheartedly agree to adding a background information to the RfC if that can help the voters in avoiding these misunderstandings. We all in this talk page know that both options are just an unofficial description, but the voters may not even check on the actual discussions here in the talk page (or in the RfC) to update themselves and avoid misinformation. The editors thankfully are given access to WP:RS but they are not enough when the RfC's question on the matter isn't as clear and concise as it should have been. So the question is: can something be done about expanding the RfC question to include background information (which some editors suggested), or is this a point where "the river does not return"? I would for a start like to figure out if there is any consensus about that background information here on this talk page, and see what can be done. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see you realizing that you need to bring the discussion back on track, because I feel offended when being accused of doing exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I'm always very careful to respond exactly to the issues that are being raised, not generally to the previous posts, although I admit that I can get carried away when I'm getting responses that don't make sense at the specific place and time. Now, if you really want to continue the methodology discussion (and here is the wrong place to do it btw), I'm happy to do so, but we need to make sure that we both agree on the principle that the outcome does not predispose to the validity of the applied methodology. I'm not happy to discuss about the actual terms here (although you keep doing it), but I prefer to do that on the actual RfC. And yes, proposed again to incorporate the background information in the RfC, but you never replied back. Changing simply the wording of the question is half measures. The question is do you now agree adding the whole background information in all sections as was suggested during the drafting process? --Argean (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * but you never replied back. Changing simply the wording of the question is half measures. The question is do you now agree Huh? In case you forgot my reply to you 1 week ago, I am copy-pasting it here for your convenience: "the wording has to encompass the background information, if we want the RfC to be as informative and comprehesive as possible. Have a good day. --- SilentResident 14:05, 23 February 2019" --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that you don't really read my posts carefully, but what can I do? I'm not talking about the wording, I'm talking about the format, and yes you never replied back! --Argean (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ohhh! Sorry, no comment about this back then, and again sorry that I can't comment even now! First, I will need to be updated on the matter and then perhaps I can comment on this. But not before. Can you point a link to the discussion about the format proposal so I would read it? I can't find it on the current talk page. And a question: Shouldn't just having the background info added, suffice for solving the RfC problems reported nowadays? Shouldn't the change of the whole format require restarting the whole RfC or something (if it is what I am thinking it is - I guess the format is about the voting system of the RfC? What else is it if not about text format? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries. This was the initial proposal and this was the final survey on the proposal that got rejected back then. I don't think that it should affect the validity of the current RfC, because it just adds a background information paragraph in each section, but honestly I don't really know what we should do. PS to avoid misunderstandings: we can change the wording of this additional paragraph to reflect the current situation (e.g. we now have the official position of the Greek MFA, so we will add it). Do we have time to do that now, since we are already in the middle of the process? I have no idea...--Argean (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK I gave it a quick look, that's certainly a proposal that had a drastically different structure if compared to the RfC's current one. When you spoke about formats, I somehow had the impression that would be ideas for footnotes that expand on mouseover and such subtle things, or something similar (such as my edit directly on the RfC which FlavrSavr reverted), or other solutions that would allow for clarifications and background information to be added without altering the RfC's that much, while achieving the goal of eliminating any potential misinformation and misunderstandings that would arise. But no, the proposal in the link you gave me, deviates further from my scope which is to simply cast aside any misunderstandings that the options choosen in the RfC do not follow the official documents and especially the Prespa agreement. While myself I tend to take in account the official positions of governments and international agreements, I do not expect nor want the others to have the false impression they are doing so or that they have to do so, when asked to pick among options Which looks like would be the case if they are to vote right after reading which are the governmental positions on each matter! Nor I would ever try get these editors influenced by governmental positions, which would be the case if the proposed format was adopted and went on by explicitly mentioning any governmental positions on every section of the RfC. All I wanted is editors not be misinformed, not risk influencing them towards the one or the other options. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * it's interesting to see that you see me as bickering, although if you read carefully, it's mostly not me who is arguing with, but thanks for taking the effort to take the discussion back to track. I didn't find any reason not to include the second update of the The World Factbook ('of low notability', as opposed to Gulf Times, I guess) in the media section so I'm bringing it back. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Media Links - minor changes (#International and governmental organizations)
With all due respect to the people of Vermont, I do not think their lieutenant governor should be listed on the same level as the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Estonia). Thus, I have removed:

Lieutenant Governor of Vermont: "Macedonian parliament"

from the media link repository. I have also refactored and reordered it so that United States institutions weren't given WP:UNDUE. &#8213; MJL  -Talk-☖  20:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In US reference books N. Macedonia is always compared to Vermont. :) I wonder if that was the reason for the parliamentary visit. Anyway, we're probably better off second-level governmental entities. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That actually made me laugh! Also, I'm glad this all set. &#8213; MJL  -Talk-☖  01:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Signatures
A note for both of you; if you simply put !nosign! anywhere in your edit descriptions then the auto-sign bot won't come and sign newly added lines. You can do this for any edits that you make in the media section. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to see (x2) that you try to teach me basic Wikipedia stuff, although, again, it's not me who's been auto-signed by a bot, or who's bickering. Your level of condescension seem to be paralleled only by your total disregard of reliable sources of any kind and your lack of respect towards an entire nation, or as you said ultimately, the people of North Macedonia will come to accept the "North Macedonian" label, and come to terms with the loss of the individually "Macedonian" one. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You describe me as 'condescending'. Please rest assured that that is not my intention in the slightest, if you have gotten that impression then I apologise. I can be a bit blunt sometimes, but I never mean to insult. Yes, sorry also about the earlier ping, I saw after the fact that it was only Peace in balkans who was constantly getting autosigned and not yourself. However, by that point the ping had already gone out so I just left the comment as is was, it wouldn't have made a difference to alter it at that stage. I didn't realise that it was just him who was a new editor here on en.wikipedia. With regards to your quoted text from myself, that was stated as an opinion. An opinion looking long term into the future, I could be completely wrong about it, absolutely! I was merely expressing my overall view on the direction that this will all likely go to one day. I feel I have shown a great deal of respect towards North Macedonia (and the people within) over the years, and I disagree with your assessment that I lack respect towards them. With what you have said about my view on the RSs, my view has remained fairly consistent since the start of these debates. My view has been that the sources are divided overall on what to do with the linguistic problems created post-Prespa. The problems caused by the introduction of the effectively new concept of 'North Macedonia' to the lexicon has left reporters divided on how to actually write their own individual articles. Thus, for the sake of preventing conflict & edit wars, we as EN.Wikipedia just need to make a judgement call one way or another, til one day a clear WP:COMMONNAME is identified and the sources all start following a consistent format. Right now everything is too recent for this to have happened yet, and even some of the sources themselves struggle to keep things consistent, as we find occasionally listed in the media section. I never claimed to not be biased in this debate. I have my opinions, and I express them when I feel I should, even if I am not necessarily correct about them. I reserve my right to my individuality. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one to hold grudges. NPOV is a wonderful postmodern pillar to build an encyclopedia - it actually regards POVs as inherent, and tries to build an infrastructure to represent all views fairly. I have a POV, you have a POV, however, as Wikipedians we should strive to have this infrastructure that gives every view its due weight. I feel the timing and the structure of this RfC fails to deliver that, especially in the case of nationality, with "North Macedonian" bordering on WP:OR. I've been consistently trying to point that this is not a merely linguistical dispute, that it has political implications in the region (that's my POV) - but more importantly, I've been urging to improve the structure of the RfC to NPOV reflect how reliable sources actually report right now. Yes, my first proposal was a bit too cumbersome, and I'm happy that some the pointings reliable sources have been accepted: but too late as everybody's already decided. And, no: en.Wikipedia doesn't need to make a judgement call one way or another - not until the dust has settled in - because: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if most of the reliable sources use the old terminology or are inconsistent Wikipedia should wait until a common terminology crystalizes. Failure to do so will a) likely increase the sources that use the new terminology that wouldn't have been there otherwise (that's POV) and b) actually increase the edit wars. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So, from what I see in your argument above, you are essentially saying that we should not make any decisions/ruling on an incredibly divisive issue (nationality) that has historically plagued wikipedia. That we will PREVENT edit wars in this way? I'm sorry, but I just disagree with that view. The whole point of WP:MOSMAC is to set guidelines for terminology (based on sources and reasonable judgement), precisely BECAUSE of the divisiveness of the issue. Is WP:MOSMAC perfect? No, of course not. It is a compromise. As will be the outcome of the RfC's nationality section, the outcome of other sections of the RfC, and the whole RfC from the outset. But I do not believe we will prevent edit wars by not making a ruling on these subjects, whichever the outcome may be. Yes, WP:CRYSTAL matters, but not as much as preventing conflict & arbitration, otherwise we would have no need for guidelines. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just remember one thing, no one ever said that any of these matters could not be re-opened at a later point in time. Just that decisions need to be made on how to proceed with this day/week/year's handling of a subject matter. If it is clear that a decision made previously needs to be changed, in light of something new, it can be! After all, this is precisely what we are doing right now with MOSMAC and this RfC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but... for an RfC to override consensually adopted policies such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES we would probably need a very high consensus (70%-80%). I hope that the three administrators overlooking the results of the RfC will take that into consideration. If not, I'd probably request a restart of the RfC immediately after March 17. Hopefully, by then we'll have the standpoints of some of the heavyweights in terms of reliable sources, such as the BBC, Telegraph and other style guides that mentioned above. --FlavrSavr (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Reports of the term "Macedonian" that refer to ethnicity
I added a clarification comment about the link here, to make clear that the term "Macedonian" refers to the ethnicity, and deleted my comment with the excuse that this is my opinion. I explained again and again that this is not my opinion, it is clear from the sentence that it refers to ethnicity for everybody who has basic knowledge of the english language. In particular, the sentence says: If you have Macedonian heritage, you may be eligible for citizenship of North Macedonia.. It talks about people who don't have the citizenship of North Macedonia and explains how "Macedonian" heritage may make them eligible to get it. I understand that has her/his own agenda here and deletes everything that she/he doesn't like, but hopefully, this is not true for everybody. Please let me know: 1) in which cases it's unclear if it refers to ethnicity or nationality, it clearly talks about those people who may be eligible for citizenship, not those who have it already  2) even if it weren't clear that it refers to ethnicity, what is wrong with keeping a clarification that says that they may refer to ethnicity? 3) if we want to include references to the ethnic group, like Macedonian culture this is fine, but why we don't create a separate list of these references? do we intentionally want to mix up all of them to make them look more? 4) as far as I know this survey doesn't discuss the change of the name used for the ethnic group, and it doesn't discuss the adjectival references that will be used for the ethnic group either, so I don't see how references to the ethnic group may be useful, they introduce only confusion and they add more work Peace in balkans (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it’s worth, heritage can be multifaceted and tied to language, religion, geographical region, countries, provinces, other administrative entities, as well as ethnicity. It certainly can be said that the founders of Liberia and their children were of American heritage. Regarding people of Macedonian heritage being eligible for citizenship of North Macedonia (I almost wrote North Macedonian citizenship), I suppose a test of the ethnicity hypothesis would be if ethnic Albanians whose ancestors emigrated from Tetovo applied for citizenship under the provision. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with . This section is about 'other adjectival usage', so it's a bit vague, to start with. I put the reference in the 'people' section first, but someone said it's not about the people, so I just added it in the 'other adjectival usage' as this seemed to be the logical alternative. And actually I think we should exclude culture-related topics in the 'other adjectival usage': this will be my next proposal. But until then, I think this reference should stay. It's refreshing thing to see you articulating your views in the talk page, although you accuse me of an 'agenda'. I just like to have, as much as possible, reasonable insight into actual usage of the terms, as this will establish WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you wish to discuss the terminology regarding ethnicity, we are effectively covering that in the #Non-contentious housekeeping section. It is part of the third bullet point in the list, with the list as a whole being voted on. It was placed there intentionally, as it was not expected there would be much opposition to continuing to use "Macedonian" for ethnicity, which is what current votes seem to indicate as well (since this is in alignment with Prespa). If you wish to argue against that then the discussion section within it is free for you to use. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW, so far, it seems that the vast majority of references to the people remain "Macedonian". As far as the state-related entities go, there seems to be an even split with a lot of sources avoiding adjectival use altogether. It's too early to tell for other adjectival usage but when it comes to culture, the preference seems to be "Macedonian", while other usage - territory, economy seems to be split between "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian".--FlavrSavr (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The usage for the name of the country is clear, North Macedonia is used by the vast majority. If you see about the people the results are unclear, since most governemental and international organizations avoid to use the terms "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian". We have examples of both usages, "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" but they are very few. The World Factbook is inconsistent and cannot be taken seriously until it is updated. I know your opinion "they might continue use Macedonia anachronistically, but this is again an assumption. We need facts not hypotheses. Then there is a clear advantage of the term "Macedonian" from the media worldwide, but this may be because they think that the official nationality "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia" can be separated to either "Macedonian" or .... This is an assumption and doesn't matter, it will take years until we see how it converges... this is the truth. Regarding State-associated entities, it is clear that the name is either "of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonian". Media reports that use the term "Macedonian" are not many, you think they are many because not many people added references about "North Macedonian" in wikipedia. For example, you can see if I added any reference the last week, this doesn't mean they don't exist. And about other adjectival usage, this is really 50-50 so far, and it makes sense. I would certainly expect the term "Macedonian" for whatever is related to the culture/ethnicity, the interesting part is the adjectival reference used for the whatever is related to the whole country not to a specific group of people. Please keep in mind that the name of the country changed three weeks ago, you cannot expect from everybody to be aware of this change. I don't see how Macedonian can still be used to refer to something from North Macedonia in country level, it doesn't make sense to me, but this will take years... Peace in balkans (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your time. The two examples reported by the Australian governmental website do not refer to Nationality (citizenship) and this is clear. Especially one of the sentences itself talks about how to get the citizenship. I can accept that it is unclear if it refers to ethnicity or something else, but it is certainly clear that it doesn't refer to Nationality. This is enough for our discussion. The survey is about Nationality, and if we discuss changing or not the name "Macedonian" for whatever refers to the ethnic group and culture of the ethnic group, then yes, we can include these two examples, but we should make it clear using a different section. To avoid any misunderstanding, I don't say that we should not call "Macedonian" the ethnic group or their culture, I never got involved in a discussion about the ethnicity. I focus only on nationality and whatever changes from the Prespa agreement. The ethnicity is not explicitly mentioned in the Prespa agreement. There are more references to the ethnic group that use the adjectival reference "Macedonian". If we don't discuss culture-related names, then it makes sense to exclude them. Maybe it's not bad if we have the full picture available and keep culture-based references, but it's very bad when we present the data in a misleading way like now. As far as I know, we don't have anything to hide here. We are trying to be objective and present the whole truth. That's the point I want to make. Peace in balkans (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To reiterate: it's not clear whether the 'Macedonian heritage' refers to nationality or ethnicity. That's why I moved it from the 'nationality' sources to 'other adjectival usage'. The 'other adjectival' section itself is unclear so there's nothing wrong in including it there. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, generally, it is unclear if the term "Macedonian heritage" refers to ethnicity or nationality. Sorry if you got me wrong. I am saying that the usage of the term "Macedonian" about "heritage" in this specific way that is used by the governmental website of Australia is clearly NOT about nationality (citizenship). There is nothing to discuss about that, because the sentence itself talks about how people can get the citizenship, which means that they don't have it. Since you now understood what is the problem, I am sure you will take care and handle properly both references. Peace in balkans (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested moves discussion of North Macedonia stub templates
At Template talk:North_Macedonia-stub, there is a discussion of a proposal to rename 54 stub templates from "RMacedonia-topic-stub" to "NorthMacedonia-topic-stub". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

European Handball Federation
European Handball Federation website has not been updated after the ratification of the Prespa agreement and the official name change to North Macedonia. You can see here that the country is still called FYR Macedonia. I cannot find any link of European Handball Federation that uses the name North Macedonia. This looks to me a clear sign that European Handball Federation is not officially informed about the new name. Moreover, one of the links of European Handball Federation that reports "Macedonian national team" uses the term FYR Macedonia for the country.

Do you think we should include links from a european organization that still calls the country FYR Macedonia? Peace in balkans (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow your line of reasoning. Do you think that someone officially informs sports organizations about the name change, and then they follow suit? I don't think so. I've included just news articles from EHF that were published after 12 February, as an example of adjectival use, I'm not adding it as an official standpoint of EHF. Also, that's not a good way to dismiss sources. I can also say, well, you know, it's obvious that the US Embassy just added "North" before every "Macedonian", and they weren't informed about the Prespa Agreement. Actually, that's exactly what happened with the Dutch, they added "North Macedonian", someone probably from the embassy informed them it was wrong and they aligned it to conform Prespa. So, no, I don't think we should dismiss reliable sources because of assumptions that they we're not informed. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time. Sure, I agree, but in this case, should we also report sources that use FYROM for the country? It doesn't make sense to me to report FYROM. Since this doesn't make sense, the article that talks about FYROM and Macedonian national team may be not a good source. That's my concern. I think yes they are somehow informed but in this specific case it's more complicated because the "Macedonian Handball Federation" must be renamed and this has not been done so far, so probably European Handball Federation is waiting until everything is renamed, and then the website will be updated properly, but I agree this is just an assumption. Btw this specific article (see here) doesn't have a publication date either, why do we include it in the list of adjectival references? Peace in balkans (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It has a publication date, it says... 'yesterday'. :) I'm assuming that it will become a date tomorrow. It also feature an ongoing VELUX EHF Champions League that will resume on 20 March. So it is very safe to assume it's something published after 12 February. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)