Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Archive 8

Let's get the ball rolling...
Maybe this is unrealistic, but I'm going to dump a text here which I, personally, could imagine to become the core of a new guideline. I'm drafting a text that tries to remain faithful to the spirit of the RfC results, and thus embodies a kind of compromise between the positions, while putting the results in the context of the policies and criteria that form their basis, pointing out issues where the RfC may have ended up contradictory or inconsistent, and also adding some tentative more concrete and viable guidance in some of the contentious areas. I'd go for something like the following:

Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: a small typo fix. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fine with your proposal except the section 5.2: somehow it gives the impression that the consensus reached on the RfC regarding state associations of the country can more or less be ignored and that the plain "Macedonian" may be used too. How can this be a basis for guideline if it nulls its purpose, which is to be clear on what the editors can use or not? The editors agree that Wikipedia is independent of any official documents, and that the official documents discouraging the use of the adjectival term "North Macedonian" have no effect on Wikipedia and cannot replace the project's rules and guidelines. Furthermore, the majority of the participants in the RfC chose the terms "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonian" when referring to the country's institutions and associations due to concerns about ambiguity. This needs to be mentioned in the guideline more clearly as to avoid the impression that the opposite can be possible too. Edit: also the term "fuller form" in the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian" is debatable, because "North Macedonian" isn't exactly the fuller form, but I can understand why the term "fuller" is used to describe it, as I too myself am unable to find a better description for it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the draft is mentioning that part of the RfC, is it not? However, it couldn't possibly present it as more than what it is, the majority opinion of the RfC participants, because that part of the RfC is the one that is most clearly inconsistent and not based in policy. The closers told us in the "adjective" section that we should go by reliable sources – but there is nothing in the reliable sources that supports that exception for the state entities. The sole reason why the state entities might have had a special rule was to accommodate the Prespa prescription (of avoiding adjectives). But the RfC also clearly resulted in that particular exception being rejected. Now we have an exception for state entities again, but it's a different one, and as such, neither based on the official prescriptions nor on the usage of reliable sources. Instead, it's based purely on the subjective preferences of a majority of RfC commenters. Yes, we can agree to abide by that preference, and I personally have no strong objections to doing so, but we can't really present it as if it was a logical outcome based on policy, when it quite clearly isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Thanks for the initiative! I'll need to it give more thought, but for starters, I think that we should amend 5.1. or add another subpoint. When reference is made to the people and their culture - "Macedonian" is to be used. This is in line with the housekeeping section that got an unanimous consensus and again amended in the 'other adjectival usage' section mid-RfC. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We can add this along with the Ethnicity and Language, it suffices. Like this: The Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there too, but I think that the adjectival usage section (5) needs to be updated to specify culture-topics adjectival usage which is to remain "Macedonian" ("Macedonian cuisine, paintings, film") etc. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that it's not necessary. Section (5) clearly refers to the country, while the language, the ethnic group and the culture are not exclusively bound to the country of North Macedonia. --Argean (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You do have a point here, however, some aspects of culture are national and more tied to the country, rather than ethnic. For example, "Macedonian television programs", "Macedonian films". Culture can not be reduced to folklore. I really think we should stress that in the adjectival section to avoid future conflicts. --FlavrSavr (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but is such a special case covered by the RfC (or by your reliable-sources research)? I was under the impression the "adjectives" section was meant to cover everything not explicitly covered in the others? Introducing yet more domain-specific extra rules would be in need of some rather watertight arguments, wouldn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We explicitely excluded culture mid-RfC, so I've stopped researching culture. I can safely say that "Macedonian film" is vastly more common than "North Macedonian film". In fact, if we did include those references in the research/repository, the entire section would have shown a preference towards "Macedonian" because it would have included "Macedonian food", "Macedonian film", "Macedonian books" etc. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * With a quick look I can say that this looks like a good job indeed., thanks for making a considerable effort to transcend the dichotomies we have created with the binary options that we forced the participating editors to align with, and lead the closing panel to conclude that there is no substantial consensus (specifically in the Nationality and Adjectives sections). I wouldn't disagree with any of the statements and I believe that they are all in line with the rough consensus that emerged during this RfC. My only observation is that we may need to specify what ambiguity may stipulate the use of more explicit terms when referring to the nationality, since the only ambiguity that has been identified during the RfC and has been included in the closing statement is the potential ambiguity of the "Macedonian" nationality vs. the "Macedonian" ethnicity. --Argean (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Editors seem to have varying ideas of what "ambiguity" means. The closing statement mentioned a potential case of ambiguity where "North Macedonian" may be used but this supposed ambiguity can be easily solved by using „ethnic“ where "Macedonian" is used in an ethnic sense. By and large, "North Macedonian" is not used by WP:RS for the people for any purposes, contradicts several Wikipedia policies and should be avoided. I'm afraid that sticking religiously to that particular nationality vs. ethnicity sentence in the closure that is basically WP:OR on a no-consensus conclusion would necessitate a closure review request. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This might work with some minor adjustments. I must say you did manage to capture the spirit of the conversation and the RfC. Thank you for the initiative to prepare it. Now proposals for corrections: 1. The second sentence "The term Macedonia... " is not needed. This did not change. 2 If you want to keep it, it should read: The term Macedonia is shared (present, not past tense). I won't repeat what FlavrSavr and Argean suggested. I generally agree with their suggestion, but we'll need to read it after they are incorporated in the text. GStojanov (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly,, I think this is an amazing guideline, better than the official RfC. I support it without any complaints :). Seems to be in line with the Prespa agreement and rules of the English language + the usage of the adjectives in the reliable sources. — Tom (T2ME) 08:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, over a night sleep, I still think this a very good draft policy. It can be improved, however. These are my suggestions:

3. The Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources. (as per Silent Resident's proposal above)

4. Potential ambiguity (nationality vs. ethnicity) should be specified as per Argean's and my comments

5. The adjectival section needs more work, also on ambiguities, namely:


 * 5.1. In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue, especially on first introducing the topic, while the shorter form may be used where the topic of the country is already established in context, for example in subsequent references in articles that are about topics related to North Macedonia throughout. Article names, categories and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether and use neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia" etc. Explanation: To be honest, I don't see why the longer form should be preferred in most ambigious cases (ex. "Macedonian national football team" cannot be potentially confused with any other team), however for the sake of compromise, I think it's a good guidance. However, article names, categories and templates need to stay as neutral as possible because of WP:NAMECHANGES (reliable sources do not use "North Macedonian" routinely or consistently). If we give appropriate weight to major media and the UN and the EU - where, in line with the Prespa Agreement "Macedonian" is allowed, and if we exclude the relatively minor SeeNews - it seems there still is a small preference to "Macedonian" rather than "North Macedonian". This means that, for example, Macedonian wine should redirect to "Wine of North Macedonia", but not to "North Macedonian wine". If there is an article about European wines, for example, we will use "North Macedonian wine", however, if one reads an article about Macedonian cuisine - "Macedonian wine" will be used. The same logic applies to categories and templates. We should follow this logic and continue to monitor the behavior of reliable sources.
 * 5.2. State entities is better than state institutions. Article names, categories and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether and use neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia" etc. Explanation: The same caveat should apply. Macedonian police should redirect to "Police of North Macedonia" or "Police in North Macedonia", but not to "North Macedonian police".
 * 5.3. (this is new). Historical adjectival references to the state entities should remain "Macedonian". Explanation: This is in line with consensus on (2). It doesn't make sense to refer to the police in the 2001 insurgency as "North Macedonian police forces".
 * 5.4. (this is new) Adjectival references to national culture should remain "Macedonian". Explanation: This is in line with the consensus on (3) and the question itself which "excludes any adjectival usage relating to aspects of culture and/or ethnicity."

Comment: The guideline should also take some note about official names of entities that are not subject to the Prespa agreement. For example, the Macedonian Ecological Society, being an NGO, will probably not change its name to "Ecological Society of North Macedonia". The same (I think) applies to the Macedonian Stock Exchange, which is a private entity. I'm not sure about sports associations (I think they should but be renamed I'm not sure when) - but changes need to happen after (not before) the official name change(s) and follow the new, official name. This will often not be "of North Macedonia", but also "National" etc. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope this works for all. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I propose we reword the first paragraph like this:

On Feb 12th 2019 Republic of Macedonia changed its name to Republic of North Macedonia, fulfilling an obligation from the Prespa agreement that ended the Macedonia naming dispute. After an RfC held between February and March 2019, Wikipedia adopts this new set of naming conventions, replacing those in place since 2009:

I think this is more factual, concise and NPV.GStojanov (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * your additions (5.3 and 5.4) are abit problematic, I am afraid, and cannot be added as is to Future Perfect's proposed guideline without improvements and clarifications. First of all, your proposed section 5.3 lacks any explanative notes such as "(now North Macedonian Police)" which still exists today, but with a different new name, and the readers should know we are referring to it only in a historical context (e.g. The rioters clashed with forces of the Macedonian Police (now North Macedonian Police)). Because it is still a state-associated force, it cannot be excempted from being treated the same way as the state itself is, in historical contexts, when it comes to state-associated adjectives.
 * Second, your 5.4 proposal is abit ambiguous and may allow bad-faith editors and disruptors to use it to refer to state-associated cultural institutions (i.e. state-associated TV channels and programs and universities, which are part of national culture), to be referred by an adjective which does not reflect the new reality (i.e "of Macedonia" and "Macedonian" instead "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonian"). To avoid potential issues on this front, this needs to be reflected accordingly in the guideline. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree on both of your proposals, they seem to be perfectly logical. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'd disagree with the example of "(now North Macedonian police)", which strikes me as absurdly pedantic and unnecessary. I am assuming that we would use such expressions mostly in contexts where the country (before and after the name change) is already a well-eatablished discourse topic, so repeating the renaming disclaimer for every sub-topic that happens to be mentioned in the same context would be useless. Moreover, such additions would also often be semantically wrong. Let's say that in 1995, the president of Foobaristan met with his Macedonian colleague Kiro Gligorov. Expanding this to "Macedonian (now North Macedonian) president" would be simply wrong, because Kiro Gligorov is not now the president of North Macedonia, and never was. Let's face it, the addition of these "now..." tags is not an "obligation" we have to fulfill to respect some rule or else get "exemption" from; it's simply a service to the reader and we don't do these things in such an obsessive way, just as we wouldn't for other historic entities that got renamed at some point. In those cases where such additions are truly useful, we can leave it to editors' common sense to add them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually Future Perfect's first paragraph is more informative and better than your proposed one. I can't see how such a lite paragraph can be more informative for the readers. It is not and if we want the guideline to inform the readers adequately, we should stick with Future Perf's version. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph states: "it was renamed". Who renamed it? Who has authority to rename a country. We should stick to the facts. GStojanov (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You got a point there, I guess. "...changed its name to Republic of North Macedonia, fulfilling an obligation..." works for me. You're right, we shouldn't present Prespa as if it, in and of itself, effected the name change – or indeed as if it in itself constituted the authority we wanted to follow. We do this renaming on Wikipedia because (a) common usage has changed, and that is because (b) the country decided on this change; Prespa itself is just background information to that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that a) is true. Common usage did not change, at least not yet. It is simply too early for that. But b) is true, and the fact that I don't like that fact does not make it less of a fact. GStojanov (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I think we are indeed making some progress here and I'm happy to see that there is a common understanding of the conclusions of the RfC. I have to agree with your proposals on 3, 4, 5.1 and 5.2, but I have some issues with 5.3 and 5.4.
 * For 4 specifically I want to remind the proposal to make a page on People of North Macedonia or at least on Ethnic groups in North Macedonia, to address the multi-ethnic character of the country and clarify various issues on terminology. The issue of ambiguity has been brought up many by many editors and it cannot be covered completely by the article on Macedonians (ethnic group). Apart from that, I propose that the text should be changed to In contexts where ambiguity with Macedonian ethnicity might be an issue, more explicit forms or explanatory text may be used, and the use of adjectival forms may be avoided when possible (e.g. XYZ possesses both Australian and North Macedonian citizenship, citizens of North Macedonia who are of Albanian/Turkish/Bosniak ethnicity, or ethnic Macedonians who are not citizens of North Macedonia). The idea of adding some explanatory text when required comes from WP:UKNATIONALS, but we can skip if it looks unnecessary.
 * On the other hand I rather agree with that the additions on 5.3 and 5.4 need some further work. Actually I think that 5.3 should go under 2 with other historical contexts. Since the name of the country for historic references remains "Macedonia", the adjective is "Macedonian" too. And Fut.Perf. is right, the excessive use of "now..." is over-elaborated. After an initial reference to Macedonia (now North Macedonia) is being made in the text it doesn't need to be repeated. If the first reference in the text is an adjective it could be something along the lines of the then Macedonian Parliament.
 * Finally, I honestly think that 5.4 is covered by language/ethnic group/culture. I think that the Government of North Macedonia knows already very well in what cases they need to change "Macedonian" to "National" (SilentResident explained it already), so using WP:RS will provide sufficient guidance. I remember reading somewhere that i.e. the names of Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts and Macedonian Radio Television will change to "National", but the Macedonian National Theatre will not change name because it represents part of ethnic Macedonian culture. That doesn't mean that we need to force the use of "North Macedonian" where not indicated, but that's already covered in state entities (or state and public entities, if we want to be accurate). That sounds like a fair approach to me. --Argean (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On your first point, I do not oppose the creation of said article, although, I must admit, so far, outside the region and outside this RfC there isn't much controversy going on, and there aren't a lot of reliable sources that discuss the nationality issue directly. Those that do, are pretty blunt, like for example this sentence from Deutsche Welle: "Macedonians — and yes, that is the right word to use for their nationality". However, I think that this article shouldn't be a part of the naming convention: per Manual of style "Macedonian" would link to the "North Macedonia" country page. I support the addition of ethnic qualifiers when necessary, but introductory statements should be in this format X is a Macedonian Albanian, or a Macedonian of ethnic Albanian origin. This should be enough to avoid any ambiguity.
 * On your second point, I only added it as a separate 5.3 point because the format discusses names first and then adjectives. I wouldn't mind if an additional sentence is added to (2) Historical adjectival references that use "Macedonian" should follow the same logic. But I think it should be added, because I've seen instances where people just add "North" ignoring the historical context.
 * On your third point, perhaps I should have been more clear in 5.4.. I'm referring to cultural products and activities, and not to state institutions. Much of 20th century culture is not so much ethnic, but national in character, involving a lot of people & organizations. For example, it doesn't make sense to speak of "ethnic Macedonian films" or "ethnic Macedonian brutalist architecture" regardless of the institutions that regulate, fund or distribute these cultural products or activities. These are "Macedonian" as reported by a majority of reliable sources and voted by an unanimous consensus (twice). However, as in the case of 5.3. we can just add The Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources. Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic. --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On the first point, I'm suggesting the creation of such an article not as part of the guideline, but as an additional measure to deal with the ambiguity question, that has been raised by so many editors. We have agreed that we will continue to use the term "Macedonian(s)" to describe the nationality, but currently there is no article on Macedonian nationals, or on People from North Macedonia or Ethnic groups in North Macedonia that are not ethnic Macedonians. At least an article for ethnic groups or minorities is necessary and it's rather strange not to have one currently, since we have similar articles for most European countries. Anyway, I'll leave it for now, because it's not part of the current discussion. As for the introductory statements, MOS:OPENPARABIO requires just one term for nationality (or location) and doesn't require to mention MOS:ETHNICITY, except if it is considered notable for that specific person. I don't expect to see issues of ambiguity in opening paragraphs and I think we have already clarified that the correct format should be Macedonian. If ethnicity is notable, which shouldn't be the rule, then indeed a Macedonian of Albanian ethnicity should be welcome as a format. I'm talking about cases where ambiguity might be an issue - i.e. when an article about e.g. Cedi Osman refers to his nationality/citizenship anywhere else apart from his MOS:OPENPARABIO. In these cases it's suggested to use explicit forms when ambiguity might become an issue, and imho adjectival forms maybe also be avoided when possible or not necessary. I don't know if there is a different opinion on that?
 * On the second point, I just don't see what is the need to add the historical use of adjectives together with the modern use, since there is already a section about historical references. People may want to add "North" everywhere, but let's keep all the historical uses together to make the guideline more coherent and simpler to follow. Historical references shouldn't be allowed the use of "North" in any possible form - this would be just a stupid revisionism.
 * On the third point, I might just be missing your point. I mean, I don't see culture, in general, as ethnic or national. Culture is strongly associated with people, and if people are called Macedonian(s) (ethnically or nationally, it doesn't matter), then their culture is also Macedonian, and of course this is not limited to folklore, but includes also modern literature, music, cinema, etc. I fail to see in what cases a reference to national culture might be made that is somehow distinct and create questions on ambiguity. I support the change and the addition of culture under section 3, exactly as you formulated it. --Argean (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a bit of a problem recently with a user trying to redirect links to the demonyms (such as Greeks or Germans) to articles about the demographics articles (such as Demographics of Greece and Demographics of Germany). There is some disagreement about how much a demonym should be considered to be limited to the original ethnic group vs all citizens of the country. This will need sorting out and the distinction for this country is even more tricky. For my own part, I would say that articles on the demonym should be of the format "Foobarians are historically an ethnic group that blah-blah-blah. Since the establishment of the Socialist Democratic Federated Republic of Foobaria, the term may be extended to all residents of that state." --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the article on minority groups that you are looking for is Demographics of North Macedonia. --Khajidha (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I remember the incident very well . There was even an RfC because that user decided to change all redirects unilaterally causing disruption. Well eventually the user was banned because he/she was evading a topic ban on Macedonia-related articles... - actually this whole issue started from the North Macedonia talk page and escalated because the user wanted to prove a WP:POINT.
 * Anyway, the issue is indeed complicated and many articles on ethnic groups have problems, because the boundaries between ethnic groups and nations are quite blurred in many cases, especially when referring to modern European nations. For example French and Swiss people are civic nations where the background ethnicity is not important, while Russians have two different names in their language to distinguish ethnicity to citizenship. The issue is even more complicated for Macedonians because they are a nation that was created more recently (mostly during the first part of 20th century), compared to other European nations that went through their modern ethnogenesis mostly during 18th-19th century. Now the issue here is that the state that represents that nation has changed name which is not i.e. a change from an exonym to an endonym, (such as Swaziland to Eswatini), and as a result that new name of the state doesn't represent a continuation of the historic development of the nation (and rightfully we are not changing the name of the people with this RfC). To make things even more complicated (and I think this is the point where the potential ambiguity stems from) the constitution of the state recognizes that it represents the Macedonian people and part of the Albanian people, the Turkish people, the Vlach people, the Serbian people, the Romany people, the Bosniak people and others, the latter being all the officially recognized minorities. So why not make an article about all these minorities that are clustered under the national concept of Macedonians, instead of having just a short paragraph in Demographics of North Macedonia, without even having a redirect from Ethnic groups in North Macedonia, similar to Ethnic groups in Montenegro?.
 * To conclude, this is a long and complicated discussion, but I guess this is not the right place and time to hold it, so apologies for the long and rather irrelevant post. --Argean (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: I don't even want to mention demonyms, which is a recently invented linguistic construct with next to zero semiological background - as opposed to ethnonyms that are actually significant part of the complex process of ethnogenesis, but anyway. --Argean (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we seem to agree on all points. I'm not sure if we need the 'historical use of adjectives' addition: while you and me might agree that it is indeed stupid revisionism to add "North Macedonian" for historical events, other, less-good faith editors might not. One cannot be too careful with (North) Macedonia related articles. :) However, I'll let be the judge of that. Hope he implements the suggestions soon so that we finally have a policy. Cheers. --FlavrSavr (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see for once more that we are able to be in agreement as part of a constructive process and not just as a simple step-back compromise. I'm wondering what the next step of the process has to be? any ideas? --Argean (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

We should follow the structure of the current Naming Convention page. Under the "Main Article Titles" I propose this:

1. North Macedonia will be the article about the country, and commonly used name in articles about present and past back to Feb 12th 2019.

2. Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia should still be used in historical articles, with an optional note "now North Macedonia".

3. Macedonia will be a disambiguation page. The order remains as is and the country will be listed as "North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe"

We need a new section: "Nation and nationality"

1. Macedonian is the name of the nation and ethnic group, and all adjectives relating to it.

2. Nationality (citizenship) according to Prespa agreement is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". We will use "Macedonian" as the routine description of people's nationality in the lead sentences of biographical articles (XYZ is a Macedonian football player...). In contexts where ambiguity might be an issue, more explicit forms may be used (e.g. XYZ possesses both Australian and North Macedonian citizenship, or ethnic Macedonians who are not citizens of North Macedonia).

In "Greece related articles" we only need to replace "Macedonia" with "North Macedonia" and maybe slightly edit it.

"International organizations" can remain as is.

"Other Articles" also can remain as is with only replacing "Macedonia" with "North Macedonia".

We need few more sections. But let's go step by step. GStojanov (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd rather work to improve 's draft. Introducing a new structure at this moment just seems to complicate things. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not introducing a new structure. I am following the structure of the current Naming Convention page.GStojanov (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is new to this discussion. Future Perfect has proposed a format. We are discussing how best to phrase things in it, what to add to it and what to remove from it. Your proposal is in an entirely different format. We need to focus on the proposal before us unless and until it can be shown to be inadequate. THEN we can look at other formats. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Enthusiastic support for ’s proposal (in grey box above), with possible minor changes to add culture and language. I am positive that this presents the fairest, most practical and most helpful distillation of this whole mess. I particularly like the approach taken to the most contentious issue, citizenship. I was in the North Macedonian camp, by the way, but can live with the proposed policy — exactly as it is worded — very well. The examples given (XYZ possesses both Australian and North Macedonian citizenship, ethnic Macedonians who are not citizens of North Macedonia) just make sense, something that was rarely if ever achieved previously. So let’s not beat a dead horse, but implement this quickly and without more nitpicking. —ThorstenNY (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to make one side note: I do emphatically oppose ’s phrasing such as Macedonian is the name of the nation […] etc. etc. No, no, no, no, no. It is not up to a guideline on terminology to make categorical claims about what something is. All we can and should say is is “use ___ to describe X”, not “X is ___.” Adopting ’s proposed changes would appear to seriously move the goalposts. —ThorstenNY (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the proposal in general. Point 3 ("The Macedonian language and the Macedonians as an ethnic group continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources.") needs editing for tone ('continue to be called like that" is not encyclopedic phrasing). I suggest "The language and ethnic group are to be referred to as Macedonian and Macedonians respectively, in line with both the Prespa agreement and the majority of reliable sources."--Khajidha (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as well for ’s proposal. Yes, your feedback for the wording indeed sounds more appropriate too. However I noticed Future Perf's wording contains the key word "still" while yours does not. Is there anything I am missing about its meaning? Would this cause any issues of implications? I hope not. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 04:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Future Perfect's use of "still" relates current usage to previous usage, my use of "are to be referred to" is more focused on the present and future. --Khajidha (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support (conditional) of what is obviously a well thought compromise between the relative strength of the positions in the RfC and relevant Wikipedia policies. The only two 'conditions' for my support is (1) the addition of culture and its adjective derivatives as worded in the above discussion with Argean - as widely uncontested (it's in the housekeeping section + it were specifically excluded mid RfC) and (2) further specifying that for article titles, categories, templates etc. we will prefer the non-adjectival use. Of course, Argean's further specifying of the nationality cases would be a welcome addition. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose The only thing that changed is the official name. The common name or adjective did not change as evidenced by reliable sources and search engine trending.GStojanov (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Pinging RFC closing panel for feedback. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think a good progress has been made here. As a closer, we generally resist making comments other than clarifications, as it might be construed as extension of our closes (and thus, noted consensus). But, making policy is hard, and I think the guideline that has distilled the RfC into is a good start. The procedure to go about it is to have the current NCMAC marked as "historical" (moved to a subpage of newer guideline for preservation of page history) and have it superseded by the new consensus - noting that status quo applies if there's no change and until and unless the consensus is invalid (although a quick glance tells me there's not much besides core naming), for example:
 * Republic of Macedonia will be the article about the country. (superseded by new consensus)
 * Macedonia will be a disambiguation page. (supported by consensus)
 * Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or any of its abbreviations will otherwise not be used. (grandfathered in)
 * Coming back to this guideline itself, it does not need Prespa agreement as any kind of reasoning (it can probably be referenced in a hatnote) considering Prespa is an official agreement with no bearing on to policy itself, the guideline should focus on only the consensus. The guideline is formed simply because the consensus exists for it to exist. So, a statement like According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement, the adjectival form "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. Instead, plain "Macedonian" is to be used in some contexts, while in other contexts, both adjectives are to be avoided altogether in favor of the alternative of possessive constructions like "of North Macedonia". However, reliable sources have not consistently been following these rules can be added to a footnote, as it is not the consensus of the RfC itself but an useful addendum. Aternatively, this can also be a part of an explanatory supplement to the guideline in place. Accordingly, for most contexts, both "North Macedonian" and plain "Macedonian" can be used on Wikipedia in reference to the country needs to be summarized as a product of no consensus emerging in the RfC, and why the default MOS (such as MOS:ALTNAME) applies. What I've quoted are small parts of the guideline but they apply to it as whole and again, I think this is a definitive good head start into arriving at an implementable policy in the area. Kudos to everyone working on it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the RfC itself begins with the sentence Due to the Prespa agreement, the Republic of Macedonia has been renamed to the Republic of North Macedonia, so I don't think that Future Perfect at Sunrise's proposed wording deviates in any way from the logic of the RfC or the consensus following from it: it just states a major historical fact and summarizes WP's community consensus around it. I think it's most useful in the way that it is right now, and I don't think it should be reduced to a footnote. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The necessitating cause of the RfC is not its consensus. I do not think FPAS' wording deviates from the spirit of the RfC either but simply that it is not required, the consensus does not exist at the behest of the agreement, the current wording just makes it sound like it is. To summarize, although Prespa agreement precipitated the change, that is not the reasoning of the consensus. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of footnotes: It is important to not give the readers the false impression in the slightest that the Prespa Agreement dictates Wikipedia's guidelines or affected Consensus (the Consensus was determined by the valid arguments in line with Wikipedia's policies anyways, not on Prespa Agreement) but provide the necessary explanations where needed. To keep the new guideline as concise and compact as possible, I wouldn't mind if this information is reduced into footnotes acting as explanatory supplements. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the sentence itself should be reworded to reduce any possible false impression about Wikipedia being somehow obligated to the Prespa agreement? Why footnotes? --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I took your conversation from here and ran with it. Your thoughts would be appreciated below. :) &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)