Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2019

The name is mistaken it should be Republic of Macedonia. We expect shortly this error to be corrected thank you and best regards. Mkdsime (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: that was the previous official name. The current official name of the country is the Republic of North Macedonia. Highway 89 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The name was changed in February. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Reformatting a sentence

This sentence has some unnecessary repetitiveness to it:

"After the ceremony, Tsipras, along with his North Macedonian counterpart, crossed over the border to the North Macedonian side of Lake Prespa for lunch at the village of Oteševo, in a highly symbolic move that marked the first time a Greek Prime Minister had entered the country since it declared independence in 1991."

Can we simplify it like this:

"After the ceremony, Tsipras and Zaev crossed over the border to the other side of Lake Prespa for lunch at the village of Oteševo, in a highly symbolic move that marked the first time a Greek Prime Minister had entered the country since it declared independence in 1991."

The context of who Tsipras and Zaev are is established earlier in the text. GStojanov (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds much better, also the use of the term 'North Macedonian' is problematic according to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/2019_RFC Anti Political Shills

As is "Macedonian". It's better to avoid using adjectives in general, so this seems like a good proposition. --Antondimak (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, for a simple geographic feature such as a lake share, plain "Macedonian" is certainly not problematic according to either Prespa or our guidelines. As for simply saying "other side", I'd be all for it, if it wasn't for the fact that it might not be immediately obvious to the casual reader that the other side of the lake was in the other country. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Prespa doesn't deal with these cases, so it can't actually prohibit or endorse either "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian". It would be better to avoid adjectives altogether, but in this case, if it is needed, "North Macedonian" should be used, because it's a textbook example of a case in which confusion would arise, as they travelled from one "Macedonia" to the other. They left Greek Macedonia and entered North Macedonia, so if the reader isn't expected to understand the situation, I doubt this would help. "Macedonian" can be used deep in an article related to North Macedonia, where no confusion would arise, while here we're exactly at the border. By the way sorry for readding "North" after your edit before replying. I hadn't noticed your reply and I thought removing it was accidental. --Antondimak (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Do we seriously have to fight over every instance of "(North) Macedonian" like this now? And do we still need to deal with pretend "disambiguation" requirements used as a weapon to force this or that naming choice into articles? This is pretty academic now, because I agree with CMD below and I'm probably going to cut the whole passage out pretty soon, but let's nevertheless clarify this. No, it's not "better to avoid adjectives altogether" (the RfC was pretty clear about that), and there's nothing problematic about plain "Macedonian" here. The guideline recommends that "the shorter form can be used where the topic of the country is already established in context". That's clearly the case here; this is about as "deep in an article related to North Macedonia" as it gets. There's no reference to Greek Macedonia anywhere near there. The reader hasn't even been told that Psarades is in Greek Macedonia, nor would they have any reason to care. Plus, the reference to "crossing the border" does enough to disambiguate the situation even for the most confused readers. Saying that somebody "crossed the border from Psarades to the Macedonian side" is no more problematic than saying that somebody "crossed the border into Azerbaijan from Tabriz", or that somebody "crossed the border into Luxembourg from Bastogne". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

We will have to argue (not fight) over every instance if we are to ignore the guidelines and force "Macedonian" everywhere. This is the one case where there needs to be a dinstinction. If "North" isn't to be used here, it can't be used anywhere. There would be no difference from your examples if we were speaking before 12/02/2019. The country isn't called "Macedonia", it's called "North Macedonia". A better equivalent would be to say "Kim Jong-un crossed from Kaesong to the Korean side to meet Moon Jae-in". I think you would agree that it would be pretty wrong in this case, as would be in our sentence. --Antondimak (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It also depends on the sources that are used for references, If they use the term 'Macedonian' then the adjective Macedonian should suffice. Likewise with 'North Macedonian'. Again it's good to abide by the suggestions in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/2019_RFC.

Nah, that's not how it works. We don't tie our naming choices to whatever choice happened to be made in whatever individual source happens to be used in this or that footnote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's necessary to state that each side of the lake is in a different country, and further there are two other sides as there is also an Albanian side. That said, this all seems like far too much detail for such a high-level article. CMD (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That's also quite true. Feel free to prune down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The simplified version suggested is fine. It states that they "crossed over the border" and that it was "the first time a Greek Prime Minister had entered the country since it declared independence in 1991", if a reader can't tell that this means that the two sides of the lake are in different countries from this then I have to question said reader's comprehension of English. --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2019

Please change IPA-bg to IPA-mk. GStojanov (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, I changed it. Jeppiz (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2019

Change: "The fauna of North Macedonian forests" with "The fauna of the forests". Rationale: The context is already well established, the name of the country is mentioned 10 times already. GStojanov (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The change "The native forest fauna..." is good. I like how user:Khajidha added semantics with "native". GStojanov (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Bulgarian minority?

I suggest dropping the mention that there is a Bulgarian minority in the opening few paragraphs as there is no modern evidence to indicate a significant Bulgarian minority. Official censuses in the Republic of Macedonia and Yugoslavia are contrary to the statement. --Anti political shills (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2019

Change: "According to Eurostat data, North Macedonian PPS GDP per capita" to "According to Eurostat data the PPS GDP per capita" Rationale: The context is already established. This paragraph alone mentions North Macedonia five times. It is way too repetitive. GStojanov (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. CMD (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Just wondering when the RfC will be ready. I think it closed 3 weeks ago.--Europarliament (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Results were posted earlier today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Remind me where this RfC was and where I can see the results.--Khajidha (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/2019_RFC --Europarliament (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Dagnabbit, just found out about this now. Wish I coulda known earlier so I coulda participated. Aw, shucks. Sigh, oh wellz. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2019

Please change: "The North Macedonian education system consists of" with "The education system of North Macedonia consists of" GStojanov (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Why? It's not an official name, it's a description. And it should be "educational system" or "system of education" NOT "edcuation system". --Khajidha (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, it should be "The educational system in North Macedonia...". Why? Because there is nothing specifically "North Macedonian" in the educational system. It is a standard educational system. So it makes sense to say: "The educational system in the country consist of..." GStojanov (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We would normally speak of "the British educational system" or the "French educational system" or the "American educational system" or.... This bending over backwards to avoid saying "North Macedonian" is ridiculous. --Khajidha (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Avoidance of using that adjective is necessary. Its usage for state organisations and other matters can result in the spillage of the term in matters of culture, ethnicity and language. That is why the Prespa agreement stipulates that 'of North Macedonia' should be used for state organisations. Anti Political Shills

No. We had an RfC about the naming conventions, we have an updated valid guideline now, we're not going to re-debate the basics again here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, at least it should be avoided when dealing with topics not related to state organisations Anti Political Shills

We are not subject to Prespa. --Khajidha (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If you were not subject to Prespa, then the old naming conventions would remain in full usage Anti Political Shills

Please read WP:NCMAC. It was quite an effort getting it hashed out, you know? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, also please use a standard signature to sign your posts, including the date and with a proper link to your actual user name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I too am disappointed that we are unable to follow the WP:NCMAC. We spent three months hashing it out, and now we don't use it. There is no need to talk about bending backward or forward. Let's use our policy. My proposal is in accordance to WP:NCMAC.5.3 (chapter 5 paragraph 3). GStojanov (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Except that there's nothing in that paragraph of NCMAC that prescribes the form you want to use. It explicitly says the opposite of what you claim. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

How about this: "...especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural." And there is nothing cumbersome or unnatural with: "The education system of North Macedonia consists of". GStojanov (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No reason to change it from the form used by the writer. At least aside from the previously mentioned need to change "education system" to "educational system". --Khajidha (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I pointed out that we are not using the official name here, we are describing it. Which is EXACTLY the sort of situation where that portion of NCMAC says that we may use "North Macedonian". --Khajidha (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using the adjectival term "North Macedonian" here. We would talk about the "North Macedonian educational system" the same way we'd talk about say, the "South African educational system". As for cumbersome, I'd argue it is more so than using the adjectival since it adds an extra word "of" into the sentence. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2019

Change: "village of Oteševo on the North Macedonian side" to "village of Oteševo on the Macedonian side". Rationale: At the time of the event the name of the country was: Macedonia, so according to WP:NCMAC.3.2: "In historical contexts referring to events between 1992 and 2019, Wikipedia articles will continue to refer to the country by its then-current official name" we should use either the then current name or then current adjective. GStojanov (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Now in my opinion that's really stretching it. We said "Macedonia" will be used in historical contexts, but here we're talking about geography, which remains unchanged. It's similar to the previous instance we were talking about, where "the modern North Macedonian state" was used, even though the event preceded the establishment of the Republic. --Antondimak (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

We are referring to an event that happened in 2018, and at that time the name of the country was (Republic of) Macedonia. We agreed that when referring to events prior to 2019 we will use the then current name (or adjectival reference). GStojanov (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Rephrased it to avoid the problem entirely. Used the suggestion from the "Reformatting a sentence" discussion above as a guide. If it isn't clear that starting in Greece and crossing the border into a country that the Greek PM had never visited since it's independence means that they ended up in (what was then) the Republic of Macedonia, then the reader's English comprehension level is simply too low. --Khajidha (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I am encouraged that we can be creative when we want to avoid an inconvenient adjectival reference. Let's keep this spirit and deal with the other four. GStojanov (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with our esteemed colleague Mr. Dimak; it ("North Macedonian side") is fine as is. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

An adjectival reference that is questionable

In this sentence we have an adjectival reference that is questionable. We refer to the past using a current adjectival reference:

"The territory of the modern North Macedonian state was annexed by Serbia and named South Serbia."

I suggest we reformat is like this:

"The territory of the modern Macedonian state was annexed by Serbia and named South Serbia."

or like this:

"The territory of the modern state of North Macedonia was annexed by Serbia and named South Serbia."

I prefer the first choice, but the second is acceptable too. GStojanov (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Even better: "The territory that was to become North Macedonia...", or: "The territory of today's North Macedonia". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The second is more encyclopedic: "The territory of today's North Macedonia" GStojanov (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This is common practice for all other countries. I don't see how it's different here. It specifically says "modern" North Macedonian state. The mention isn't historical, there was no "Macedonian state" at the time, it simply refers to the borders of today's country. We use phrases like "the territory of the modern Greek state" for the ancient period even though no such thing existed, because it is used to help the reader understand the geography. Similarly "the territory of 'modern Portugal', 'modern Spain', 'modern France'", is used for periods during which these states didn't exist. Actually a less "cluttery" solution would be to use "the territory of modern North Macedonia", but instead a more descriptive phrase is used because of current sensitivities. --Antondimak (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we then say: "The territory of modern North Macedonia was annexed..." GStojanov (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Whatever we say, there's of course no reason to prefer the wordy "(North) Macedonian state" over the simple noun "North Macedonia". I wonder why the same person who was arguing that adjectival forms are problematic per se in the thread above is now insisting on using one here? For the sake of what "current sensitivities" would you do that? – That said, personally I'd still go for "that was to become", because it helps to get the idea across that it was only through this annexation that the territory in its current extent was first defined as a unit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I still personally prefer "North Macedonia" to "North Macedonian state" personally, I just said that I would understand if it was kept more indirect in order not to upset people (specifically Slavic Macedonians in this case). Now that you explain it, I think your proposal is better, maybe reworded as "which would later become". --Antondimak (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"The territory of the modern state of North Macedonia was annexed by Serbia" seems to imply that today's North Macedonia had their land actually annexed by Serbia. 18:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2019

The last sentence of the Medieval and Ottoman period section is problematic. "and the territory of Macedonia subsequently became part of the province of Manastir Vilayet until the end of Ottoman rule in 1912." This is simply not true. Only Western Macedonia was part of the Manastir Vilayet. The rest of Macedonia was under other vilayets. I think if we change only the word "the" to "that" it will make perfect sense: "and that territory of Macedonia....", since the author is only referring to "north-western North Macedonia" in this paragraph. --Jorisvda (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understood you right: are you saying that for the territory of today's North Macedonia "Manastir Vilayet" is largely correct, while other parts of Macedonia (region), i.e. today's Greek and Bulgarian territories, were in other Vilayets? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Manastir Vilayet was centred on Bitola and covered parts of today's independent Macedonian state as well as parts of modern Albania and modern Greece. The other areas of today's independent Macedonian state were parts of other vilayets. --Edin balgarin (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done MrClog (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is the country's former name mentioned in numerous languages while the country's current name is not?

I am talking about this sentence:

Prior to February 2019, in Macedonian the country name was Македонија, officially Република Македонија; in Albanian Maqedonia, officially Republika e Maqedonisë; in Turkish Makedonya, officially Makedonya Cumhuriyeti; in Romani Makedoniya, officially Republika Makedoniya; in Serbian and Bosnian Makedonija, officially Republika Makedonija; in Aromanian Machedonia, officially Republica Machedonia.

It is clear that the sentence is a nod to the minority languages spoken in North Macedonia, namely Turkish, Romani, Serbian and Bosnian, and Aromanian. It is also very clear that the sentence is a reworked remnant from the time the country hadn't changed its name yet. Right now, there are only two logical ways this can go:

a) include the current name of the country in all these languages in the info bar in order to keep this sentence, or b) scrap the utterly pointless sentence altogether. The article already establishes in its second sentence what the country's previous name was in English.

Option (a) is logical, it is also however ludicrous. No English-speaker is interested in either the current or the former Turkish, Romani or Aromanian name of the country. Even more so, similar articles about other countries which changed their official name, be it because the country's polity or the country's everyday name changed, do not recite every previous name of the country, or predecessor of that country, in that country's language(s).

Suggestion: scrap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:712D:8F00:E04A:F0E0:8E7A:9FD4 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. It makes the article unnecessarily long as well. Taxydromeio (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

Change the denonym to North Macedonian. This is about the state, not the ethnic group. MichaelDim02 (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's about the people of North Macedonia. The guidelines say that "North Macedonian" can be used if necessary, so perhaps it should be added too, but the main term to be used is plain "Macedonian". --Antondimak (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Not done, the predominant demonym in English usage is plain "Macedonian", and that's what we also use per WP:NCMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

membership

North Macedonia is the official candidate for EU and NATO membership. PLEASE add this information to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.179.94.178 (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit on the "Kingdoms of Serbia and Yugoslavia" section

First of all, the section is focusing a lot on the Serbianisation process going on in Serbian/Yugoslavian Macedonia, so it's useful to have the link to the full article there. Secondly, I don't think the reason for which King Alexander was assassinated is disputed. There are a lot of reasons, like with any historical event, but by far the most important one, which is the one mentioned here as it's not the main article, is his treatment of Macedonian Bulgarians. After all he was killed by a Macedonian Bulgarian, who was a member of an organisation whose goal was the independence of Serbian Macedonia as a Bulgarian state and end his assimilation policies on Macedonian Bulgarians. Again I don't think this is disputed. Of course we are omitting the contribution of the Ustashe, but their role was secondary. Perhaps we could change the sentence into: "King Alexander was killed for his assimilation policies towards Macedonian Bulgarians and Croats." to include the Ustashe invovlement, or "[by IMRO member Vlado Chernozemski], in an attempt to force the independence of Yugoslav Macedonia as a Bulgarian state", not even mentioning a motive, just in order to tie it into the article. We need a sentence like that to be there, because otherwise the assassination isn't connencted to the article. The reason the assassination is even mentioned is because it's related to the history of Yugoslav Macedonia. --Antondimak (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Request to add an image of St Sophia (Ohrid)

Given that the church of St Sophia is pivotal to the state, that is, it is the primary church of the MOC-OA and the historic church of the Ohrid Archbishop, I suggest replacing an image of a church which is already on the article with the more significant St Sophia preferably this image:

Regards --120.18.81.192 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverts over the name, again?

Re this [1] revert-warring: per WP:NCMAC, we continue to use the old naming, i.e. plain "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia", for historical statements in contexts before 2019. Thus, a government in 2008 wasn't formed "in North Macedonia", because there was no such thing at the time. In addition, the choice between plain "M." and "Republic of M." in these cases continues to go by the same criteria as it used to under the old guideline, so whenever the context is unambiguous, plain "M." is preferred. In this article, the context is as obvious as it can possibly be, so the Prespa agreement was made "between Macedonia and Greece". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the term "Greek Macedonia" not "a proper term"?

In a recent edit summary in this article, Clicklander is claiming that "Greek Macedonia" is not a proper term. In a follow-up discussion in their talk page they repeat this claim several times in different forms: not an official and proper term, nowhere used within official documents, in the official bibliography (whatever that is). I see that they also used the same argument in an edit to this article back in February: There is no such a thing "Greek Macedonia". I am aware that "Greek Macedonia" is not an official term, but it seems to me that it is a commonly used English term whenever there is need to distinguish the Greek region Macedonia from other meanings of the name. It is used in English-language newspapers as well as in academic publications (also in titles of books and articles). Can anyone confirm or refute this claim? --T*U (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that Clicklander's command of English is lacking. --Khajidha (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Greek Macedonia is a proper term, I believe. And a term doesn't have to be official for it to be considered apropriate. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think Clicklander may be trying to say "proper noun". "Greek Macedonia" is not an established name for a specific place, it is simply a descriptive phrase. And, as a descriptive phrase, it is perfectly understandable and unobjectionable. --Khajidha (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What I am simply saying is that the term "Greek Macedonia" is not an official name, it is a descriptive phrase as Khajidha pointed out. The official name is "Macedonia" not "Greek Macedonia" and an encyclopedic article owes to use the official name at first place. Therefore the proper term for starting a topic sentence in such an article should be something like "the Greek region of Macedonia" or "the Macedonia region in Greece" etc. I do not see an issue if such a descriptive phrase is also used in the article at a second place (e.g. "...ancient Kingdom of Macedon which falls within Greek Macedonia..."), but only after mentioning first in the paragraph the official name, so that it makes clear what is meant by the term "Greek Macedonia" later. I really do not understand why people oppose so hard that change and keep reverting my edit.

However, this is not the only issue with this sentence. It is written: "In the south, North Macedonia borders the region of Greek Macedonia, which administratively is split into three peripheries (one of them comprising both Western Thrace and a part of Greek Macedonia)". For someone who knows nothing about local geography this is misleading. In other words what is written here, is that this region is divided into three other administrative regions and one of them is again divided into two geographic regions, where one of them is Western Thrace. Anyone with common logic can easily assume that Western Thrace is a sub-region of Macedonia which is absolutely false! Western Thrace is a separate geographic region within Greece, not a part of either today Greek Macedonia region, nor of the entire modern geographic Macedonia region. I tried to write it in a better way to avoid this misleading meaning, if someone can rewire it even better, feel free to do it. But by just reverting it, sorry guys this is not called contribution! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a magazine and has to be very accurate on how names and terms are used in its articles. Clicklander (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

We can simply take that description of the internal administrative structure in Greece out completely. The details of how there isn't really any one set of administrative units that is coterminous with Greek "Macedonia" will always be cumbersome to describe, and there's really no reason we need that detail here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong / unclear choice of words

Under Names and etymology:

"Prior to June 2018, the use of the name Macedonia was disputed between Greece and the then-Republic of Macedonia." -> "Prior to June 2018, the use of the name Macedonia was disputed between Greece and the then-former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" "The Prespa agreement, signed by Macedonia [...]" -> "The Prespa agreement, signed by F.Y.R.O.M [...]"

[And although....... I really can not see the reason for the part Ancient and Roman period reporting about the ancient kingdom of Paeonia. This is Hellenic and Roman history and the only relation with the Republic of North Macedonia is the current geographical position. The same applies for the Medieval and Ottoman period. The history of the Republic of North Macedonia begins only after its separation from Serbia. We should not hang pictures where they do not belong just to fill the walls.]

Under Ancient and Roman period "Philip II of Macedon absorbed[56] the regions of Upper Macedonia (Lynkestis and Pelagonia) and the southern part of Paeonia (Deuriopus) into the kingdom of Macedon in 356 BC" this should be linked to Macedonia (ancient kingdom).

Under Medieval and Ottoman period:

"Slavic tribes settled in the Balkan region including North Macedonia by the late 6th century AD" should be "Slavic tribes settled in the Balkan region including that of North Macedonia by the late 6th century AD" The Republic of North Macedonia was not present back then. In "Presian's reign apparently coincides with the extension of Bulgarian control over the Slavic tribes in and around Macedonia." a link to Macedonia (region) would be nice. "Rumelia Eyalet was abolished in 1867 and that territory of Macedonia [...]" -> "Rumelia Eyalet was abolished in 1867 and that territory of North Macedonia [...]"

Greetings, Einserschüler (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You can just forget about us ever actually using "FYROM" (or any variation thereof) in that manner. The ancient and Roman periods are covered because they are the same place. That makes it relevant, regardless of who lived in the area. And, while you have a point about the 6th century AD settlement, your proposed wording is ungrammatical. --Khajidha (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Just another small point which is that Slavs settled everywhere across the mainland despite the presence of other nations there. It was not only the historical Macedonia where they settled but well beyond. Only though time they assimilated. Greeks only formed majorities along the coastal regions when Slavs were beginning to settle. As such neither North Macedonia nor Macedonia by itself truly suffices. --Edin balgarin (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It called itself Republic of Macedonia. If you look for ISIL or Daesh on Google maps you will not get any results. The recognized name was FYROM. "Slavic tribes settled in the Balkan region including that of North Macedonia by the late 6th century AD" I do not see the mistake. You can say today's North Macedonia instead. North Macedonia did not exist back then. Until the 6th century AD the only Macedonia that existed was Hellenic.

Einserschüler (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You should know by now that "recognized name" is not what Wikipedia "recognizes" and not what the majority of people "recognized". (Republic of) Macedonia was always the most common name used in English for the country north of Greece. Using "FYROM", which was never a name, but a "designation in lieu of a name", was a fabrication and fanciful compromise that was only valid for United Nations purposes to keep Greece happy, not universally used even in political circumstances. Most countries used "Macedonia" rather than "FYROM". --Taivo (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree 100% with TaivoLinguist. There is no comparison to ISIL/Daesh. In all honestly, Republic of Kosovo is a far closer match to ISIL than Macedonia by any name because in 2019, more than 50% of the world's population lives in a country whose atlases will not mark an independent country on the land claimed by Kosovo or by ISIL, they will appear as Serbia (Kosovo's case) or as Syria and Iraq (ISIL's case). --Juicy Oranges (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No bulgarians mentioned in Ethnic groups?

Just wondering why the side table contains so much ethnic groups, but bulgarians are not mentioned even as tiny percent?

When you think about it, at first glance comes the bulgarian citizenship that macedonians try to gain(in order to travel freely in the EU). According to wikipedia`s own article there are 70 000 macedonians that recieved bulgarian citizenship(Source: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bulgarians_in_North_Macedonia). Bulgarian citizenship can be only obtained by proving your bulgarian origins(e.g. old documents that some of your fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers lived here and were exiled outside of Bulgaria for some reason or other kind of proof).

So when 70 000(~3.5% of the population) north macedonians themselves prove that they are ethnic bulgarians I think it is proper to mention them in the side table of Ethnic groups. IMO the number of real bulgarians should be a lot, a lot higher, but i don`t wanna go into this discussion now.

It is not mentioned in the article because it is not mentioned in the source. --Khajidha (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Citizenship is not nationality, despite the obligations required in obtaining one. Maybe we should consider the ethnic Albanians who have applied for Bulgarian citizenship as Bulgarians by your logic? By the way, sign off when you submit on the talk page 120.21.120.2 (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Move Naming paragraph lower in the Lead section?

It is understandable that the second pragraph on Lead which writes:

The country became a member of the United Nations in April 1993, but as a result of a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia", [......] This renaming came into effect in February 2019.[f]

is placed that high on the lead, considering how important role it played in shaping the country's modern history. But shouldnt this section be trimmed abit to remove redudant info, and have it moved/merged with the history paragraph (4th paragraph on lead)?

For example, have it trimmed abit around here:

The country became a member of the United Nations in April 1993, but as a result of a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia", it was admitted under the provisional description the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[e] (abbreviated as FYR Macedonia and FYROM), a term that was also used by some other international organisations, FIFA for instance. In June 2018, Macedonia and Greece resolved the conflict with an agreement that the country should rename itself Republic of North Macedonia. This renaming came into effect in February 2019.[f]

reason for trimming: the position of third organizations about a dispute is abit too redundant for the lead about a country. The country's lead should be shorter and more concise. (This info about int. organizations is present on the main body anyways).

And I propose we merge that trimmed paragraph with the rest of the lead's history section, two paragraphs lower:

The history of the region dates back to antiquity, beginning with the kingdom of Paeonia, probably a mixed Thraco-Illyrian polity.[17] In the late sixth century BC, the area was incorporated into the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then annexed by the kingdom of Macedonia in the fourth century BC. The Romans [..........] but after the end of the war, it returned under Serbian rule as part of the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Later, during the Second World War (1941–1944), it was ruled by Bulgaria again, and in 1945 it was established as a constituent state of communist Yugoslavia, which it remained until its peaceful secession in 1991. The country became a member of the United Nations in April 1993, but as a result of a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia", it was admitted under the provisional description the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[e] (abbreviated as FYR Macedonia and FYROM). In June 2018, Macedonia and Greece resolved the conflict with an agreement that the country should rename itself Republic of North Macedonia. This renaming came into effect in February 2019.[f]

Its not a big deal I think, just a small improvement which helps Lead emphasize more on the actual country itself. Any problems? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I second the idea proposed by SilentResident. At this point, the lead of the article looks... unorganized. Also, the FIFA example is completely bizarre, I don't think it belongs to the lead. I like the proposed idea very much because IMO the reading flow will improve as well. — Tom^(T2ME) 20:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It is done. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks much better. I split the paragraph (cause it was huge!) and tweaked the first and the last section. The last one looked poor as well. I think it reads better now and encompases more detail. — Tom^(T2ME) 19:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tomica: Perfect! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

POV with regard to usage of "Macedonian Bulgarians"

The recent edit http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=North_Macedonia&diff=909007372&oldid=908897473 is POV and it had no consensus on an archived edit request. The usage of "Macedonian Bulgarians" is basically label picking to create implications which align with certain points of view. King Aleksander had a harse policy to anyone resisting Serbinization which included Macedonists, Bulgarophiles, ect. 120.21.120.2 (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There had been some talk over this a month ago. I posted my reasoning in this page, and nobody disputed it. After a long time of no opposition I decided to go forward. For the record, here's the reasoning: "I don't think the reason for which King Alexander was assassinated is disputed. There are a lot of reasons, like with any historical event, but by far the most important one, which is the one mentioned here as it's not the main article, is his treatment of Macedonian Bulgarians. After all he was killed by a Macedonian Bulgarian, who was a member of an organisation whose goal was the independence of Serbian Macedonia as a Bulgarian state and end his assimilation policies on Macedonian Bulgarians. Again I don't think this is disputed. Of course we are omitting the contribution of the Ustashe, but their role was secondary. Perhaps we could change the sentence into: "King Alexander was killed for his assimilation policies towards Macedonian Bulgarians and Croats." to include the Ustashe invovlement, or "[by IMRO member Vlado Chernozemski], in an attempt to force the independence of Yugoslav Macedonia as a Bulgarian state", not even mentioning a motive, just in order to tie it into the article. We need a sentence like that to be there, because otherwise the assassination isn't connencted to the article. The reason the assassination is even mentioned is because it's related to the history of Yugoslav Macedonia." --Antondimak (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Antondimak, Chernozemski was not Macedonian Bulgarian. He was Thracian Bulgarian, hence he and his parents stemed from modern-day Velingrad. Jingiby (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no difference between Macedonian and Thracian Bulgarians, be it linguistic, cultural, or identitarian. They were all Bulgarian nationalists, and, in fact, many Thracian Bulgarians, including Chernozemski, considered themselves Macedonians. He was in a group fighting for the independence of Serbian Macedonia as a Bulgarian state. Every "Thracian" Bulgarian liberation organisation that has exised was always tied to Macedonia (e.g. BMARC). Besides, even if we were to consider them distinct, Velingrad is withing walking distance from the modern borders of Macedonia, and could be included in it at the time. --Antondimak (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You must really be fond of walking if you find Velingrad to be withing walking distance from the modern borders of Macedonia. The distance is about 90 km, and it would be very rough walking. --T*U (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

-T*U, the distance is in fact ca. 10 km. by air. Jingiby (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Not that this in any way is important, but that does not fit with any of my maps (and I have many). The shortest air distance from Velingrad to the Macedonian border (measured in Google Earth Pro) seems to be approx. 86,32 km. --T*U (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we talk about different objects. I talk about the geographical region of Macedonia with late Ottoman times historical perspective and you about the territory of the modern-day country. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I guessed as much, but the sentence I commented on, was explicitly about the "modern borders of Macedonia". Anyway, small matter... Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"modern borders of Macedonia, and could be included in it at the time." Not "modern borders of North Macedonia". I'm referring to the modern geographic region. The name of the country was changed exactly so that there is no confusion between those terms. "and could be included in it at the time": The borders were very fluid, there was no clear definition. I didn't think this would need explanation, but alas. --Antondimak (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that unofficial descriptive regions even had borders. Such regions are, as you say, "very fluid". Describing them as having "borders", which are precise demarcations, is inappropriate. --Khajidha (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nowadays Macedonia as a region is quite clearly defined. --Antondimak (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Antondimak: Is it really true that Macedonia as a region is quite clearly defined? It would be nice if you could present the definition here together with a Relible source to back it up. --T*U (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I meant that it seems to be pretty much agreed on an international level that Macedonia includes Greek Macedonia, North Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia, Mala Prespa, Golo Brdo, Gora and Bosilegrad. All are areas defined by law. However it turns out it is more of a common understanding than an official designation, so Khajidha was right. Apologies for the confusion. --Antondimak (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Antondimak: I need to ask again: Do you have any reliable source that this definition is pretty much agreed on an international level? Or is it just your personal view and original research? --T*U (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't have any bearing on the article so I don't think I need to find one. I didn't ever add such a statement. --Antondimak (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Antondimak: Well, if you use Macedonia as a region is quite clearly defined as an argument in a talk page discussion, you should be able to back it up with sources. If not, you should retract the statement. --T*U (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I did. I said Khajidha was right. But his objection was over the use of a word in one of my statements, not anything relating to the article. --Antondimak (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The documentary film Honeyland was selected as North Macedonia's entry for the Best International Feature Film at the 92nd Academy Awards

"It was selected as North Macedonia's entry for the Best International Feature Film at the 92nd Academy Awards." per http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Honeyland_(2019_film) and here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_submissions_to_the_92nd_Academy_Awards_for_Best_International_Feature_Film — Preceding unsigned comment added by MtnBiker (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Demonym

The demonym should be updated to add North Macedonian too even though it’s not official. It’s the same case and North Korea and South Korea. It’s not the formal demonym obviously, but since Wikipedia has the demonym ‘Kiwi’ for Zealand, I think we should at least add the demonym North Macedonian here. Taxydromeio (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If Macedonians don't call themselves "North Macedonians", and no one but Greeks calls them "North Macedonians", then it's not a demonym. --Taivo (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

To be honest Greeks don't call them "North Macedonians". --Antondimak (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Then there is absolutely zero evidence for "North Macedonian" as a demonym. --Taivo (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, here is one: a 17 September 2019 Washington Post article, which consistently calls people “North Macedonians” —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Given the editor initially thought Macedonia was in the Baltics, and initially used the former name of the state, I think this one can be attributed to ignorance on the editors behalf. Beat of the tapan (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Just put both in there, like the Koreas do (as OP already mentioned). Though if it were up to me, I'd just go with the one to avoid cluttering everything up, but to satiate everyone, then put in both. That said, Korea's not really the best analogue for this case as "South Korea" and "North Korea" are informal colloquial terms. A better analogy would be that of South Africa, where "South Africa" is an integral part of the state's official name, like "North Macedonia" is here (hence why people from the RSA are referred to as "South Africans" rather than simply "Africans" [usually]). Plus, WaPo is an RS so if it's good enough for them, then by all means it should be good enough for here. Also it makes logical sense, the country's name is North Macedonia so it surely follows from that that the people who are from there are called North Macedonians, just like how Saint Lucians are from Saint Lucia. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

What South Africans and the rest of the Anglosphere call the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa doesn't matter. The history of "South African" has absolutely nothing in common with "Macedonian". Nothing whatsoever except in the imagination of the previous poster. All that matters is English common usage. Period. And English common usage is clearly and unequivocally anchored on "Macedonian" as the demonym for the inhabitants of North Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy, but as it stands the demonym links to the majority ethnic group, excluding the 36% of the population who are not ethnic Macedonians. This was raised previously in the RfC as well. This is the equivalent of United Kingdom linking the demonym British to English people. --Michail (blah) 13:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Demonyms are almost always ambiguous when they refer to an ethnicity and a nationality. "American" can refer to citizens of the United States as well as to residents of the American continents, for example. "South African" can refer to both the white (generally English) population of South Africa or to all the citizens of South Africa. "Chinese" can refer to the ethnic group worldwide and to the citizens of China (and even Taiwan). "Macedonian" can refer to both the ethnic group (both in and out of North Macedonia) and the citizens of North Macedonia. It's just a fact of life and there's nothing that can (or should) be done about it. It's the way English works. --Taivo (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Those are false equivalences to a degree though, because in this case the demonym links to an article which refers not to the demonym itself (people of North Macedonia, ie Macedonians) but to a subset of that demonym, ie the 64% of those people who are Macedonians (citizens of NM) and also ethnic Macedonians. Those two kinds of "Macedonian" are not the same, and since the beginning this page has consistently failed to correct this by redirecting Macedonian to demographics of North Macedonia (like South Africa does) or people of North Macedonia. --Michail (blah) 20:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't understand the ambiguity of almost all demonyms including "Macedonian". The English language has not incorporated "North Macedonian" as a nationality demonym for citizens of North Macedonia. These citizens are still known as "Macedonians". Perhaps someday English speakers will recognize "North Macedonians" as a demonym, but that time is not now and Wikipedia is not, and will not be, a driver of usage, but only a describer of usage. If you think that Wikipedia should lead the way, then you are seriously misinformed about the function of Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you people are talking at cross-purposes here, as some seem to consider this a question of general naming guidelines, and others seem to be focussed merely on the specific question of what to link a certain entry in the infobox to. As for the general naming practice, let's stop re-litigating the naming RfC here, shall we? We discussed all of this to death. As for the link target, I agree there's something of a problem, but we don't seem to have a standard solution to it. Most European nation state articles have "demonym" entries linking to the name of the majority ethnic group (e.g. Germany linking to Germans), even for countries where minorities make up a similarly important part of the population (e.g. Turkey linking to Turkish people). Maybe the wisest thing is to do it the way the Poland article does it : simply not linking at all. That field in the infobox is meant to provide the simple linguistic information of what the name for the citizens is; there's no need it also has to link to something, especially since the population and ethnicity issues are already treated within this main article itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess this is why the RfC process concluded that adjectival use should be avoided whenever possible in favour of constructions like "North Macedonia Foo" or "Foo of North Macedonia", especially in the names of articles and categories. Would it be appropriate to indicate none as demonym, with a footnote explaining that the Prespa agreement uses “Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia” in its entirety, that "Macedonian" refers to the majority ethnic group of the country, and that use of "North Macedonian" is infrequent in English? BTW, "North Macedonian" is absolutely correct in English (just like "East Timorese"), but its use is variable. And "Macedonian" is also a demonym for Greek Macedonia, of course. Hence the name dispute, the ambiguity, the agreement etc. Place Clichy (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of making judgements as to "correctness". It is in the business strictly of describing what is, based on reliable sources. If the majority of English language usage is still "Macedonian" to ambiguously cover both the ethnic group and the nationality, then that's what Wikipedia should use. There can be a section of the article itself that can clarify the ambiguity and give more detail about the ethnic makeup of the country, but without reliable sources that use "North Macedonian", then it should not be the demonym. After all, doesn't the Prespa Agreement itself use "Macedonian" and not "North Macedonian"? (I could be wrong in that memory.) --Taivo (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The Prespa agreement says “Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia”, see Article 1 § 3(b): The nationality of the Second Party shall be Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, as it will be registered in all travel documents. Some have argued that this expression should therefore be used in its entirety. That's what the UN and the EU say, with a lengthy note reproducing almost identically Article 1 § 3(h) of the agreement: 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.

Just so that I understand, what is in fact the problem with "North Macedonian"? Place Clichy (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not common English usage. Perhaps it might be in the future, but it is not now. Thus, Wikipedia, as a descriptive work and not a prescriptive one, is obligated to use "Macedonian" for the demonym, even though it is ambiguous between the nationality (embodied in Prespa) and the ethnicity. Only a WP:CONSENSUS can force a usage that is counter to common English usage, but you don't have one for this issue as shown in the previous RfC. --Taivo (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

it is not common English usage: I really wonder which part of "North Macedonian" is not correct or common English usage. "North Macedonia" was not a common denomination for the country until a few months ago, and then everybody seems to be happy to use it now (or maybe that is the problem). even though it is ambiguous between the nationality (embodied in Prespa) and the ethnicity: it is funny how the ambiguity with the Greek region of Macedonia (or other uses of the word "Macedonia") does not seem to strike your mind. Place Clichy (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Which part of the word "ambiguity" do you not understand? I have been crystal clear that "Macedonian" is ambiguous between the nationality (technically more than just ethnic Macedonians) and the ethnicity (technically more than just national Macedonians). But that ambiguity is common with virtually every demonym in the world (ethnic Chinese are not just national Chinese and national Chinese are not just ethnic Chinese). I've never said otherwise. But Wikipedia is not the place to enforce your semantic order on the English speaking world. That's the point. Wikipedia only follows common English usage. You said it yourself, that it's too soon for "North Macedonian" to become common English usage. Therefore Wikipedia will wait until it becomes common (if it ever does). But the Prespa Agreement uses "Macedonian". That's still the common English demonym for citizens of North Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Taivo. There is no need to change it. Firstly, the constitution states that the nationality is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" which indicates that the demonym "Macedonian" has a explicit correspondence with citizenship. Secondly, disambiguation from a regional group is not necessary, especially if the articles is about a self-governing state. Maybe if there was a south Macedonia state, then disambiguation is necessary. This is why the Macedonian demonym is common amongst English speakers, since there is no need to qualify the term on state-level. Beat of the tapan (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I think some people are failing to understand the point myself and others are trying to get across. The issue is with the link pointing to the ethnic sub-group of Macedonian nationals who are also Ethnic Macedonians, as opposed to the demonym for everyone who has the citizenship of North Macedonia, including the 1/3 of the population who are not ethnically Macedonian. These are not interchangeable as Taivo suggests, and I imagine Albanians would be rather cross if you called them Macedonian slavs. --Michail (blah) 23:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If you don't like the link, then do what Future has suggested on multiple occasions here and delink it. (I'm not familiar enough with the coding to do it myself.) But suggesting that "Macedonian" is not the common English demonym for nationality just because it doesn't match ethnicity is not acceptable. The English language label "Macedonian" is both an ethnic label for a group of South Slavs and a national label for a citizen of North Macedonia. That's just the simple fact and there's nothing that will alter that at the present time. There are Brazilians who don't like the fact that citizens of the US are called "Americans", but that doesn't matter. Ukrainians don't like the fact that the most common spellings in English for the three most famous places in their country are "Kiev", "Odessa", and "Chernobyl". There are a lot of things that people in the world don't like, but that's not Wikipedia's problem. Wikipedia defines common English usage (in the English Wikipedia, of course). So if you don't like the link, then remove it, but just because some people in the Balkans don't like English labels doesn't change the labels in the English Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonians redirects here from several months to all citizens of North Macedonia. Jingiby (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Michail You are right, we had this discussion before, and although it's hard to see it at first, the point is that there is an issue regarding all demonyms in general. The truth is that demonyms are simple linguistic constructs with no deeper meaning and linking them to ethnic groups rather adds a complex semiological layer that is actually non-existant and can even become misleading, as in the case of North Macedonia. The idea of linking demonyms to the demographics pages of each country has also been discussed here and it's apparently a controversial move, which I personally don't support simply because the information provided is such pages is not what usually a user is looking for. There were some alternative solutions suggested during the RfC, like your proposal on creating a page on "Nationals/Citizens of North Macedonia", but there was lack of consensus, so we 're stuck with what we already had. I support the idea of simply delinking the demonym and imho this should be done for all demonyms in the respective infoboxes of all country pages. --Argean (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:TU-nor has delinked the demonym for this article. I agree with User:Argean, that this is a bigger issue than just for North Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

But suggesting that "Macedonian" is not the common English demonym for nationality just because it doesn't match ethnicity is not acceptable – I never said we should change the demonym...? All I said was that the linked article should not be about the ethnic group. I'm fine with the current fix of removing the link altogether. --Michail (blah) 15:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Kate Marie Byrnes up for Deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Kate Marie Byrnes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia. Career diplomat. Question of sources and citations. WP:BEFORE. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2019

To just capitalize a historical nation/kingdom that needed to be capitalized. Concaaes (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It is the sort of thing you would capitalise, but I cannot find anything on the optics that starts with a small letter. If you provide the name, we can find it using the cache option. --Edin balgarin (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

north macedonia is not used in the wiki page in their own language, it reads Македонски (makedonski)

north macedonia is not used in their wiki page in their own language, it reads Македонски (makedonski) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniodimitriadis (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

That may be, but this is the English Wikipedia and consensus seems to be North Macedonia or a variant of that. Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 4 January 2020

Please update prime minister to Oliver Spasovski he has resigned recently.

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-01/04/c_138677313.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.106.242 (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the page has been updated. 78.28.44.223 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Reactivated request because article body still names Zaev as prime minister. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've changed the prose of the article (and one picture's caption) to reflect that the acting PM is Oliver Spasovski.  Spintendo  08:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Lowest GDP

Is stating that North Macedonia "has one of the lowest per capita GDPs in Europe" in the leading paragraphs necessary? Especially because the articles on Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo have no mention of such thing in their leading paragraphs and they have lower GDP (PPP) per capita... I personally think this should be dropped for consistency. --Beat of the tapan (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I definitely don't see it as necessary. --Local hero ^talk 18:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Zoran Zaev and Theresa May in Skopje.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Macedonia. Krakkos (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2020

It says North Macedonia is expected to join NATO by the end of 2019, but they haven't yet, and it's 2020 Windorrum (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing "Samuel of Bulgaria" to simply "Tsar Samuel"

The later is obviously more historically accurate, while the first is due to wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty. Although, the policy to the best of my knowledge only applies to the main article title rather than its external usage in wikipedia. Given there is no other Samuel mentioned in this article, there is no need to disambiguate. Therefore I propose changing the name to "Tsar Samuel" or simply "Samuel". --Beat of the tapan (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Also consistent usage of either Samuel or Samuil is needed. Beat of the tapan (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

At least the first mentioning of this historical figure here must use his standard name as in the main article by obvious (pseudo) historical reasons. Jingiby (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay first mention in the article will retain the full name, therefore the image caption will consist of the shortened name Beat of the tapan (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2020

With the current success of the movie Honeyland could somebody please add the following sentence at the end of the Cinema section? Cheers and thank you very much in advance!

• The documentary Honeyland (2019) directed by Tamara Kotevska and Ljubomir Stefanov, received stellar reviews and universal acclaim from contemporary film critics and was nominated in the categories for Best International Feature Film and Best Documentary Feature at the 92nd Academy Awards, making it the first non-fictional film to receive a nomination in both categories. DD1997DD (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

References

 Partly done: Added factual information and source, but in the future please ensure that edit requests comply with the WP:NPOV policy. In particular, please avoid WP:PUFFERY phrases like "received...universal acclaim", etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Noted, thank you very much! DD1997DD (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You're most welcome, and I hope you stick around and continue to contribute. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Macedonia and EU

Not constructive.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am not sure what NATO made as a name of the Republic of Macedonia is applicable for the EU membership. Because of the neighbouring countries. Shouldn't we name the article Accession of North Macedonia to the European Union ‎to Accession of Republic of Macedonia to the European Union? NAto is a North Atlantic Aliance, I don't understand how Macedonia neighbours the ocean? LOL So it is a South Macedonia in geography honestly. It is hot there. --Alexsports (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The Name Macedonia minus qualifiers

I have just come back from the ex-Yugoslav region and I had been in Macedonia right from the new year until a few days ago. That's by the by, but I wanted to say this: earlier there was a discussion somewhere about Macedonia per se being a widely used colloquialism. It appeared to be too early into the constitutional name change and the result appeared to be to leave it off. I believe I can safely say that "North" is not only rejected by the majority population, but considered an insult by all of those apart from the elite few with ties to Brussels. I am in favour of a bold mention of "Macedonia" in the lede. Sources are ubiquitous. I want some opinions first before making a bold addition. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested around the time the article was renamed that "or simply Macedonia" or similar wording belongs in the lead because it is no doubt sometimes still referred to without "North", especially internally as you state. --Local hero ^talk 14:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The name of North Macedonia is a subject of an international treaty crucial to the country's political future - the Prespa Agreement. This name is also enshrined in country's constitution. It is known by this name in the UN and in the EU. With that name, it joins NATO nowadays. This name has been discussed for a long time and confirmed by the WP:MOSMAC. Going back to the past would mean returning to the ugly name as former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Jingiby (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

While the usual name of Macedonia should remain "North Macedonia" throughout Wikipedia, a simple comment in the lead that says, "still often known as 'Macedonia'" would be appropriate. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist (Taivo) as you know Wikipedia works based of reliable sources. May you provide WP:RS supporting your opinion and clarifying where it is "still often known as 'Macedonia'". Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Any reliable source before 2019 will work since these are still in the bibliosphere. But primarily I believe User:Juicy Oranges when she/he states that there are ubiquitous sources within Macedonia. Perhaps you should ask him/her. Perhaps you could also desnark your comment a little? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Taivo, I also believe User:Juicy Oranges for the Slavic part of the population of the country. I am not sure whether the Albanians, Turks, Romani etc. minorities there are so deep involved in that issue. However I don't have any reliable information about the rest of the world. Jingiby (talk)

Finding that usage in the rest of the world isn't necessary if it is still commonly used in that part of the world. If the Slavic population of North Macedonia, and perhaps also the Macedonian diaspora, still uses Macedonia more commonly than not, then that would still justify a brief comment in the lead (no more than that, of course). I recently (post-Prespa) purchased a hard-to-find Macedonian translation of Lord of the Rings. I had to work through about five people from Croatia to Skopje to procure it. Our correspondence was conducted entirely in English and not once did any of the participants use "North Macedonia", just "Macedonia". Only one of the participants was actually Macedonian. The others were Croatian (except me, a Scots-Irish American, of course). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion yesterday is confirmed by you today. I have supposed that usage is still maintained in the countries of former Yugoslavia. However I am not sure whether that issue is so important to be mentioned in the leading section. By the way Macedonian nationalists, including these writing here, are refusing to accept the new name on the Macedonian Wikipedia. But I think, this issue is irrelevant for us, and we must stick to the official name, based on the Wikipedia rules, our decisions, official agreements, NM constitution, etc. Full stop. Jingiby (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing the issue of what name to use throughout Wikipedia (which is unquestionably North Macedonia) with adding a brief, one-time mention in the lead that you can still find Macedonia despite the name change. That's not an earth-shattering addition and won't cause the polarity of the poles to shift. Wikipedia should reflect facts on the ground in an appropriate way. Ignoring that Macedonia is still being used, albeit in limited circumstances, is not reflecting facts on the ground. Full Stop. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You also seem to be confused as to the difference between the English Wikipedia and the Macedonian Wikipedia. Whatever they are doing over there is not under our control and is not really our business. --Khajidha (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not confused at all. If that usage is carrying over into English usage in Macedonia, then it is indeed the purview of the English Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that comment for Jingiby, didn't count the colons properly. And it was only in reference to his(?) complaints about what is being done on the Macedonian wiki itself. --Khajidha (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Most people in common society still seem to use the term Macedonia in reference to the state. I guess it is because most people don't see the need to qualify the name to distinguish it from Greek region (If they even know about it in the first place). Beat of the tapan (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The name of the state is North Macedonia, according to the constitution of the state and at the international bodies. North is not an addition to the name, neither qualification, it's part of it. It's an indivisible name. How some local people name it not so significant to mention this in the leading text. There could be a section that explain this case with reliable sources of a nation-wide research on local population opinion. --StanProg (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Just like "of America" is part of the "United States of America" but we still refer to it everywhere as just "United States". There's no doubt that this country often being referred to without "North" warrants mention in the lead. --Local hero ^talk 14:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The whole notion of "official name in the Constitution" is a false one to claim in Wikipedia. "Kyiv" is the official name of Ukraine's capital, but Wikipedia's article is still at Kiev because that's the majority usage in English language sources. As User:Local hero notes correctly, we don't use the full constitutional name of "United States of America". Nor do we refer to the land of Queen Elizabeth II as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". "Constitutional name" doesn't matter here. In this case, we're not even trying to move the article or to make a big deal of the matter by supplanting "North Macedonia" with "Macedonia" anywhere. We're asking for a simple, single sentence reference as the second sentence of the lead, that "Macedonia" is still commonly used in reference to the country. You'd think we were trying to renegotiate the entire Prespa Agreement. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The article contains this: "The country became a member of the United Nations in April 1993, but as a result of a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia", it was admitted under the provisional description the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[f] (abbreviated as FYR Macedonia and FYROM). In June 2018, Macedonia and Greece resolved the conflict with an agreement that the country should rename itself Republic of North Macedonia. This renaming came into effect in February 2019." It goes without saying that old name is still sometimes used, old habits die hard and it is not necessary to state in whatevever article dealing with some kind of (name) change. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If it is still being commonly referred to in English sources as Macedonia, that should be mentioned. "Official", "constitutional', "according to Prespa", etc are completely irrelevant here. It is solely about English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Well one year may be right time to evaluate if old habit dies way slower than expected, but anyway it is only natural that each renaming brings "adjusting period" when both names are used and there's no need to track it down until old name dies completelly. Do you thing that Macedonia was renamed prematurely on Wikipedia, that it was just sped up exception because of the whole Greek-Macedonia dispute FYROM/Republic of Macedonia case? Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course the whole renaming of "Macedonia" > "North Macedonia" was artificially accelerated here because of the very vocal pro-Greek editing corps. Under normal circumstances, per the Wikipedia policy of WP:COMMONNAME, we would have waited to rename the article until English usage had definitively changed. But that's neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that adding a sentence at the beginning of the lead that simply says something along the lines of "Macedonia" is still in common use is not a change that violates any Wikipedia policy and is not a realignment of the magnetic poles. It is common to have alternate names of places at the beginning of the lead. In many articles the first three words are "X or Y" with alternate names prominently displayed. That's not even the request here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I was involved in the process of changing the name and I can tell you there was no rush (kind of the opposite because of the techinal delays). We monitored usage of reliable sources in English, and made decisions based on those. That's the reason "Macedonian" is occasionally used in places where it is forbidden by the Prespa Agreement. Of course, the agreement only regulates state activities and not private entities (and is very explicit about it). I'll refer you to where all the mentions by reliable sources were written down. --Antondimak (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Old name was Republic of Macedonia and it simply cannot be the same "common" as other names, since it is political name in its core and those have clear beginning and end of use. Again, it goes without saying that old names are often used after renaming too and old names are stated in the article. BTW is really Macedonia used more than North Macedonia? Or are we just guessing? Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

1) Nobody is saying anything about "Republic of Macedonia", so I don't know why you brought it up; 2) no one is saying that Macedonia is used more than North Macedonia, only that it is used. Were you perhaps confused about the usage of the > symbol above? That was quite obviously meant to symbolize "to". --Khajidha (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

An article about the issue: 'Northies' Has Crept Into The Macedonian Debate. Will It Ever Go Away? By Andy Heil from RFE/RL's Balkan Service; June 25, 2019. Jingiby (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Having read the original post, I see a lot of desperate resistance to the proposal and entirely from either deliberately or accidentally having missed its points. First, opposing petitions appear to challenge the original post as though the proposer suggests renaming the page. If so, most arguments are correct with the exception of the name "North Macedonia" being "crucial to the country's political future". It is crucial for the REGIME's future, one might add which does not include the biggest opposition group VRMO who have already given indications that their vision for Macedonia is towards Russia and in opposition to the EU. If they come into power in the next few weeks (which I predict they won't as power rests in the hands of those able to manipulate the vote), then the balance will tip. Likewise the Montenegrin opposition (which refers to the Djukanović regime as "the George Soros wing") early on expressed solidarity with VMRO and the Macedonian people by saying as far as they the Montenengrin opposition are concerned, it will forever be "Republic of Macedonia". As for the removal of the qualifier - correct term per definition, qualifier - it may come as a shock to some people's system but there is such thing as being opposed to the EU and NATO membership and NOT being a nationalist. That's the EU's narrative, where everyone who opposes his country's membership must be a "nationalist". The word "Makedonija" is in everyday parlance for everyday people both in Macedonia and the surrounding Slavic countries, and the question of whether the individual is a nationalist does not see the light of day. It could well be the old saying which is that old habits die hard, but then double-barrel with multiple syllable names are frequently reduced to one of the two words: in Bulgaria, Gorna Oryahovitsa becomes Gorna, Veliko Tarnovo becomes Tarnovo locally as does Malko Tarnovo in its vicinity. In wider Bulgaria and into Serbia and Macedonia, Tarnovo means Veliko Tarnovo. The bottom line is that the regime attempted to use the referendum to trick-fuck the population into tacitly accepting NATO and EU membership by embedding the supposition into the question. The nation responded with a boycott. And for the attention of those editors who trumpet how the qualifier North is enshrined in law and constitution, so was the procedure for boycotts, but the regime quickly added a new page to the rule book and the desired outcome was carried through according to the instigator's wish. I appreciate that what I am saying is not relevant to the topic being discussed, but I needed to clear up certain misgivings where people operate on the assumption that most Macedonians are on their knees begging on Brussels' door. Anyhow, some asked for sources and I found the following:

• https://faktor.mk/koga-kje-padne-prviot-sneg-vo-makedonija Today's date (When will the fist snow fall in Macedonia? - see Macedonia option as well on top bar https://faktor.mk/makedonija)
• [2] Choice for car of 2020 in Macedonia
• http://macedonianfootball.com/?option=com_content&view=category&id=14%3Anews&layout=default This is in English but locally published
• here is quite a telling source from the world of handball: http://macedoniahandball.com.mk/makedonija-gi-dobi-protivnitsite-na-ep-2020/ - there you see a screenshot of some other source naming "North Macedonia" while the authors are unperturbed in their defiance.

Then on top of that there is much of YouTube such as Kanal 5 Vesti which only says "Makedonija", no "Severna/north", no "republika/republic". So the sources are there to show that the word by itself is common enough to warrant a mention on the article. --Edin balgarin (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Julia Reichert when receiving the oscar for the Best Documentary Feature at the 92nd Academy Awards, made reference to the country as simply Macedonia during her speech. As I said, many, even outside the sphere of the Balkans ignore the qualifier term (or the full constitutional name as some put it). The broad usage of Macedonia (especially amongst Macedonians) instead of the full constitutional name is something that needs to be mentioned in the lead, and I think most agree here. Beat of the tapan (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The English language press surrounding the film "Honeyland" seems to split between using "North Macedonia" (probably slightly more common) and just "Macedonia". This alone is evidence that a phrase including just "Macedonia" at the beginning of the lead is perfectly appropriate. Examples of "Macedonia" include [3], [4] (which uses "Republic of North Macedonia" to start the piece and then "Macedonia" thereafter), [5], [6], [7], etc. This is more than enough evidence that "Macedonia" is common enough in English language sources to be mentioned. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Just thinking about this one in my own head a bit deeper, it is very common when you think about it. Two Irish polities, which means Ireland per se can refer to the whole island free of political connotations, but can also represent a shortened form of the sovereign state "Republic of Ireland". If something is reported to be happening in Ireland in the national sense, nobody assumes this means anything else other than the land controlled from Dublin. On a Bulgarian article, I believe we too can indiscriminately talk of a place being in Macedonia when it is known we refer to our Pirin region (I say "our" because this is my background), and vice-versa with Greece and Greek pages. I was never implying Wikipedia should go ahead and refer to North Macedonia by its second part only, but just a note somewhere in the article, preferably the lede, that it is still common for many people without discrimination to use the word "Macedonia" by itself. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can be reduced right down to the two-syllable "Britain" and is so in the body of many articles. Here in England where I live, just about all two-or-more word town and village names are truncated at some point: Chipping Norton is simply Norton to locals for instance, and as for Great Malvern close to where I live, apparently there is nothing "Great" about it when the locals talk about it: it is just Malvern! :) --Edin balgarin (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Remember that English usage is not dictated by the Prespa Agreement. We changed the article title per Prespa, but relegating what is still clearly alternative English usage to the end of the lead as a "some ignorant sources haven't heard about Prespa yet" comment is inappropriate recognition that English language sources still use "Macedonia". Indeed, the New York Times (ref above) is perhaps indicative of what English usage in news sources might commonly look like: "North Macedonia" in the headline or first paragraph and "Macedonia" thereafter. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest to drop the clarification: in both English[8][9] and former Yugoslav countries[10][11] from the leading section. Unofficially it is also still called Macedonia is enough. Jingiby (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

For once I gotta agree with Jingiby. Especially since those footnotes are terribly OR-y. We shouldn't be adding footnotes documenting our own observations of linguistic usage in what (for this purpose) are primary sources. Those observations are fine for talk, but not for mainspace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

What footnotes? --Edin balgarin (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The ones in that sentence, of course, currently [8] through [11]. With OR explanations such as "The New York Times has "North Macedonia" as the first reference, but "Macedonia" throughout the remainder of the piece". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) I realize I'm a bit late to the party here, but the more I look at it, the less I like the whole addition of that sentence, with or without qualifications. In that position right after the first sentence it really makes little sense to an outside reader, because the "also still called" can't be understood if the recent renaming hasn't been mentioned before, which it hasn't at that point. And once you do know about the recent renaming, there's really no point in stating that it's "still called" that: wouldn't it be self-evident and trivial to any rational observer that a renaming like this wouldn't change everybody's language habits from one day to the next and that an older name would be likely to hang around for a while? But if what we want to express is really more than this triviality, i.e. if we wanted to talk about the political acceptance or non-acceptance of the renaming among the native speakers and so on, that would be far too complex for the lede and would also require a whole lot of better sourcing. Non-OR sourcing, i.w. actual secondary analysis of the linguistic state of affairs, not just random source snippets in which we have ourselves observed this or that naming practice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

My point exactly (you explained it much better ;)). Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, Future, I think that you're missing the point of the information. You are looking at it from the perspective of a knowledgeable person who has heard of and understands Prespa and the name change. You are ignoring the average English-speaking reader who knows nothing whatsoever of Prespa and has looked in their atlas to find "Macedonia" and wants to know about the place. They know nothing about "North Macedonia". So when they are redirected to "North Macedonia" it is helpful for them to see quickly in the second sentence that they are, indeed, at the right place without having to read about any name change agreement halfway through the article. You assume here that Wikipedia must stick with the official name and never mention any other commonly used name that our readers may encounter. "North Macedonia" may one day become the only usage, but until then I demonstrated (with all those links above) that post-Prespa English language sources still commonly use "Macedonia". Even the New York Times uses "Macedonia" in subsequent paragraphs to the first. So as long as "Macedonia" is part of common English usage, it should remain clearly stated at the beginning of the lead that this is the right place for readers looking for "Macedonia" who know nothing of "North Macedonia" or Prespa. Just look at Myanmar for example. "Myanmar or Burma" even though "Burma" is no longer the official name. If we're going to be consistent, then "North Macedonia or Macedonia" should be the first sentence. We quickly changed the article title and avoided putting "Macedonia" as an option in the first sentence before fairly judging WP:COMMONNAME to satisfy our Greek friends, but that doesn't mean that we have to go whole hog and remove any mention in the beginning of the lead to continued English usage of "Macedonia". Remember, my friend, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I have no objections in principle to mentioning the name in some way, but I do think the way it was done now wasn't good, for the reasons stated. I wouldn't have a problem with just saying "(before 2019: Macedonia)" or something like that. That would clearly satisfy your reader wondering if they have been redirected to the right place. And I'm still pretty sure that no such reader would have a problem understanding if we told them in this way that "M." was an older name valid before 2019 but they happened to have just heard it still in use in 2020 – that possibility is still trivial. And I very much maintain my position about not having those footnotes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The footnotes served a temporary, but useful function. That function accomplished, I had no problem with you deleting them (they are preserved above for historical purposes). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is getting absurd. North Macedonia is clearly by far the most common name used by reliable sources, there is a disambiguation page, there is an explanation of the entire situation at the start of the article, and Google usually points to this article when users search for "Macedonia". I don't see this helping anyone, but only awkwardly preserving public misinformation. --Antondimak (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not absurd. Most reliable sources in English for the past 30 years have "Macedonia". Just because many reliable sources have used "North Macedonia" for the last year doesn't mean that our readers will never again encounter on a regular basis "Macedonia". They need to know that they are on the right page. And "misinformation"? Really? To say that it was called "Macedonia" before 2019 is not misinformation, it's a fact. Greeks constitute a tiny minority of English speakers, so even though it's not a fact to you doesn't mean that it's not a fact to the billion or so non-Greek English speakers. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe it to be almost impossible for somebody not to unserstand they're on the right page, based on what I mentioned. About sources, Ceylon is also the name used for Sri Lanka

for most history since it started being appearing in English publications, but I think we should care about current, not historical, usage. Moreover, to be clear, the name wasn't "Macedonia" before 2019. Before 2019 there was a very complicated situation, where at least two names existed in parallel. Finally, when I say "misinformation", I mean this is overcompensating for the readers not understanding the situation. There are already enough indications to let them understand, we don't need to "cater" to a misinformed belief that the country's name is Macedonia. --Antondimak (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Tell that to people who still call Myanmar "Burma". And before 2019 the majority of English language sources used simply "Macedonia", not the Greek-required "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", which virtually no one used except in formal situations where Greek representatives were present, and even then not universally (the U.S., for example, used "Macedonia" officially). It's not complicated at all since no one uses "FYROM" anymore, but "Macedonia" is still common. You're just barking up the wrong tree trying to remove all historical usage of "Macedonia" for your northern neighbor. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You boviously have an ideological bias. Anyway, there was a very long discussion with many people involved about that a year ago. You can't go changing the concensus without proving that it's necessary and restarting the whole process. --Antondimak (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I know very well about the discussions surrounding Macedonia's name; I was part of WP:ARBMAC2. But those discussions were about the title of the article and the use of the name within articles, not about scrubbing any reference to "Macedonia" as a continued common usage in English. That's your ideological bias. And just because there was a consensus to quickly change the name doesn't mean that it followed the dictates of WP:COMMONNAME in terms of gathering evidence from reliable English-speaking sources. It did not. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't decided quickly, it took months. It was also decided to keep using "Macedonia" for any mention of the Republic before 1991, except maybe using both name in some cases, though the latter hasn't been implemented, and using "Macedonian" as an adjective for various uses. In fact, both "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" are used by reliable sources, however the Skopje article doesn't use the "North Macedonian" qualifier once, so I don't think you can claim any bias toward that direction. I actually see actual usage going against the consensus favouring "VMRO side", not the "SDSM side". We had said that the discussion could open again in case reliable sources gradually change their stance, and they have, thus far, not done that. "North Macedonia" is still by far the most common name. --Antondimak (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you debating about here? Nobody here has proposed a change to the overall guideline in NCMAC, regarding either the article titles or the general naming practices in other articles. The only thing that's up for discussion right now is the unique editorial decision on how to present the range of name variants in the lead sentence of this one article. Please stay on topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The current edited version, where "before 2019: Macedonia" occurs following the official "North Macedonia" variants, is simple, straightforward, accurate, based on reliable sources (both before and after Prespa), and clear to any English-speaking reader. It is not a violation of WP:NCMAC. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the article title or any other aspect of NCMAC should be changed. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I find this version, saying that it took the name "Republic of Macedonia" at independence, considerably clearer than the gnomic comment "before 2019: 'Macedonia" in parentheses. For one thing, putting substantive content in the header parenthesis makes the header harder to read. It also doesn't give appropriate context. After all, it was called the "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" from 1963 until 1991. For another, it makes it sound as though they used the unmodified name "Macedonia". It would be a bit like using "China" or "Korea", unmodified, in the lead of the articles on Taiwan (Republic of China) and North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea). --Macrakis (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That version is even harder for readers to understand. It's not about the history of names, it's about what English speakers are likely to encounter in reliable sources. They are quite likely to encounter Macedonia, even after Prespa. Having "Macedonia", with the qualifier that it was only official (as a short form) before 2019, is precisely what English speaking readers need to see. They don't need a history lesson or a long commentary, they need to see that "Macedonia", the name that they are encountering, was used for North Macedonia until 2019. If they want to know why, then they can read the article. If they don't care why because they're only there to check out the square mileage of "Macedonia" then they've got the information they need: they're in the right place even though the title of the article is "North Macedonia". Stop getting all panicky because the simple "Macedonia" hasn't been properly scrubbed or stigmatized after Prespa. We're here to help English readers navigate Wikipedia and having a brief note about a name that they are still going to see in reliable sources for a long time is one of the important functions of Wikipedia. After all, it's been decades since Burma became Myanmar, but the article Myanmar still begins "Myanmar or Burma". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Our friend the naive user might well be looking for information about the modern country, the region, the ancient kingdom, or -- who knows? -- for the dessert. All of those usages are found in the real world in different contexts. We need to be clear.

I am not interested in "scrubbing" or "stigmatizing" the name Macedonia; I am interested in helping the user, so kindly don't attribute motives to me. And kindly don't characterize me as panicking. I am also not being legalistic or pedantic. I am especially surprised at these characterizations as I have been consistently neutral and non-nationalist in my contributions to articles related to Greece. For example, I have added the historic Ottoman names to modern Greek cities (as well as adding the historic Greek names for modern Turkish cities); I have contributed to articles about non-Greek-speaking and non-Christian populations in Greek history; etc. etc.

The Burma case is not relevant, as neither Burma nor Myanmar are ambiguous, the way China, Korea, and Macedonia are. --Macrakis (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

China and Korea are ambiguous because they refer to two different nations. Macedonia is not ambiguous because it refers to one nation of the world and one nation only. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Macedonia by itself clearly refers to many different things, as documented in the disambiguation page Macedonia and in the second paragraph of this article. Macedonia can refer to at least two different modern countries and one ancient country, and two different nations/ethnicities, modern and ancient. I have no problem using the unqualified word "Macedonia" where it is unambiguous. --Macrakis (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

PS I think it would be more accurate to say that China and Korea refer to one nation each, divided between two countries. --Macrakis (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There is only one modern country called "Macedonia". There is no ambiguity when it comes to country names. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but why would we expect the reader to only consider modern countries? A fourth-grader studying Alexander the Great is more likely to be thinking of the ancient kingdom. A ninth-grader studying the Cold War is more likely to be thinking of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia. If they end up on this page, we want to make sure that they don't get confused. --Macrakis (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec)And readers do not always come here from the disambiguation page. They may have come here by following a link that still says "Macedonia". Or they may have searched directly for "North Macedonia" wondering what it referred to and how it relates to "Macedonia". They don't want to read the whole article to find out that "Macedonia" = "North Macedonia". This whole discussion is actually rather pointless. There is no effort to change the name of the country that Wikipedia uses. There is no effort to encourage the use of "Macedonia". There is simply a very brief reference to help our readers equate "North Macedonia" with "Macedonia" since the latter is still very common in English language sources, both before and after Prespa. You'd think we were trying to overthrow a government with the passions that this issue inspires in the anti-"Macedonia" community. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Responding to your last comment: That's why there is a hatnote clearly present at the top of the page: "If you're looking for something else, go here..." But if they're looking for modern Macedonia, why make them go back to the disambiguation page just to return here? That's not user-friendly and it's just another way to scrub the usage of "Macedonia" from this article. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing against saying that the common informal name of the country is Macedonia. And it is informally called just Macedonia even today, not just "before 2019". The parenthetical remark is just too cryptic. And I'm still waiting for your apology for mischaracterizing and attacking my motives. --Macrakis (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The original text which I added to the article was a second sentence, but Future Perfect rightly noted that it was too much. If a reader wants to investigate the details then they are presented later in the article. Simplicity is better here. The note that "Macedonia" is still present and recognized should be up front with the optional terms used to reference the country. The analogy of "Myanmar or Burma" is perfectly appropriate and parallel. In this case, however, adding "before 2019" is an acceptable clarification so that the reader knows that current usage should favor "North Macedonia" over the simpler form. A simpler amount of text is better for the first sentence. Details are for later in the article if the reader seeks further information. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The agreement that locals, internally to the country, would just use Macedonia to refer to it does not seem very convincing to me, because they probably wouldn't use English when they do that. Place Clichy (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not about locals, it's about English usage, which still has reliable sources (such as the New York Times) that continue to use "Macedonia", sometimes in combination with "North Macedonia". As long as English language sources continue to use "Macedonia", it is a relevant piece of information to include in the English Wikipedia. If you want to talk about usage in Macedonian sources, then you need to make your comment on the Macedonian Wikipedia. And as far as "informally" goes, it's not "informal" in English when the New York Times and other media sources use it. And this whole discussion isn't about clarity, it's about making sure that a powerful editing group in the English Wikipedia--Greek-aligned editors--are happy that their trademark assertion over the word "Macedonia" is upheld and enforced. The best, most accurate, and clearest wording for the first sentence would be "North Macedonia or Macedonia, officially Republic of North Macedonia...". But that is unacceptable to our Greek friends even though the Prespa Agreement has nothing whatsoever to do with English language usage. Therefore, the current slightly awkward wording "...before 2019: Macedonia" is in place as a compromise. The fact that reliable English language sources still use "Macedonia" without the modifier and that pre-Prespa English language sources nearly universally used "Macedonia" means that "Macedonia" without "North" or "FYRO-" deserves its place in the first sentence where naming alternatives are used in Wikipedia (for example, at Myammar, which begins "Myanmar or Burma" even though "Burma" has not been official for decades). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with the current lead sentence, besides the bare-Macedonia issue. But I dare not touch it....

North Macedonia, officially the Republic of North Macedonia; (before 2019: Macedonia), is a country ...

What is that semicolon supposed to mean? Shouldn't that be a comma?

What exactly does "(before 2019: Macedonia)" refer to? It comes right after the official name, but before 2019, the official name was Republic of Macedonia. If we're going to mention a former name, shouldn't we mention the former official name?

That's leaving aside the issue of how exactly to describe the name "Macedonia". --Macrakis (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) This is a major issue that needs to be decided with community input, e.g. via RfC or some other mechanism. Whatever the case, there is no consensus for recent changes, so original status quo remains until a new consensus emerges. Khirurg (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

That was not the original status quo. That text had lasted for less time than the text you reverted. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sheer nonsense. The text you added, without consensus, was added on 11 February, so, what, 11 days? The text I restored had been there since at least April 2019 (and possibly longer). Get your facts straight, and get consensus for any changes. Khirurg (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is, if you had read this whole thread, is that reliable sources in English still use just "Macedonia" and Prespa did nothing to rewrite the decades of English sources that used "Macedonia". The attempt to scrub "Macedonia" from Wikipedia is misguided because it refuses to acknowledge that English is the language of this Wiki and English still uses "Macedonia". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The issue here is procedural. You made a change 11 days ago, replacing text that had been there for a long time. This change has now run into opposition. The issue needs to be settled by consensus involving the community. You cannot ram through changes because you have strong feelings about the issue. Khirurg (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Notes