Wikipedia

Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 25

< Talk:North Macedonia
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Andreasgrk in topic Demonyms
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Requested move 8 February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago215 comments86 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, per overwhelming consensus that now is the right time to move this article — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia → North Macedonia – The Prespa Agreement which was signed between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece, entered into full force on 12 February 2019, after the historic approval of North Macedonia's NATO Accession by the Hellenic Parliament, which was the final step for the name change. The Prespa Agreement went into implementation this day, and the authorities of the Republic of Macedonia are updating the country's road signposts, border crossings, office names, diplomatic titles and ranks, as well as state institutions and state-funded organization names, which previously were using the term "Macedonia", to the new term "North Macedonia". The deadline for the renaming of all these signposts, state border crossings and such, is 15th February 2019. The country authorities are also informing, these days, the United Nations that the new constitutional name is Republic of North Macedonia (full) and North Macedonia (short) and all UN member states are obliged to accept it.

There was a Requested Move a few weeks ago, and the consensus was to wait until the right time has come. Now that the name change finally happened and the Prespa Agreement went into full force and cannot be reversed; "Republic of Macedonia" is no longer the country's official name, and therefore, I am requesting that the article is moved to reflect the country's new name. ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

”Macedonia” is most often used in English to refer to this country, now and for the foreseeable future. But if is decided by consensus that we need to keep a qualifier in the title, then either Macedonia (country) or North Macedonia. --Local hero talk 07:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
"[...] until UN is officially informed" I am afraid this Move Request is not about how UN calls it. (and for the record, UN calls it Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia but this never really mattered for Wikipedia before, nor I can see how it would matter now). "UN [...] accepts the change" UN can not "accept" or "deny" international agreements between involved parties. The Prespa Agreement is quite clear in its provisions that the UN can only "welcome" it, not accept/deny it, as stated by the UN Special Envoy Matthew Nimetz himself. This was done intentionally, to eliminate the necessity of sending the Agreement to the Security Council (where the threat of a Russian veto looms). "Plus an RfC is needed to update WP:MOSMAC for technical issues relating to other aspects of the Prespa agreement and their application in wiki contexts, i.e ethnonym vs citizenship." Citizenship and Ethnonym are different cases and cannot be affected by this RfM, nor the RfM can be affected by them. In wiki context, they are a totally separate case, which I am very certain, you know already. Plus the general consensus was to wait until the name change is done, not until WP:MOSMAC is updated (which however is welcome to update nevertheless; in fact, it is in need for a update.) --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The ink is not dry on this process. Countries have to all sign the NATO accession protocol. Then there is the UN and as you pointed out issues such as Russia. International formalities regarding the name should be seen through first before the current article is proposed for a pagemove. I am not in favour of placing the Cart before the horse. Everything has its own time.Resnjari (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
You would have knew the ink is try since June 2018. It would be a "cart before the horse" case if the Move Request happened when the Prespa Agreement was ratified but not implemented (that's why the previous Move Request failed). Now, that the Agreement is both ratified and implemented, what are you waiting for? The name change is over already. And Russia can't veto it either. If we wait any longer, we may actually end up with the horse leaving the cart behind. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Nope. Others have to sign the accession protocol as well and then there is UN. Waiting is best until all international formalities are done with. Why do this quick. What's the rush.Resnjari (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Apparently you are talking about something else, because the Prespa Agreement's implementation was conditioned only on its ratification by Greece, not the other NATO Member states. What are you arguing about? Haven't you followed the developments closely? --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Potato patata. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not my thing about this silly name dispute. International formalites are still happening on this issue and until they are done we should wait.Resnjari (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It has become clear that we would never agree, no matter what. Let's leave it at that. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not the only one here who opposes hasty changes.Resnjari (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
So what do you suggest? To keep the article under a constitutional name it no longer uses? How does that satisfy WP:RS? --Michail (blah) 02:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack, "Macedonia" and not "Republic of Macedonia" is the country's WP:COMMONNAME but it is already reserved as a Disambiguation Page (here). So our only options are moving from one non-wp:commonname (Republic of Macedonia, which is no longer the country's valid name since yesterday), to another non-wp:commonname (Republic of North Macedonia/North Macedonia, which is the country's new name).
We can't do as you suggested and keep the article with a name that ain't its real name nor commonname anymore. If it helps things, there is a strong likehood that "North Macedonia" can become the future wp:commonname, besides the fact that it meets WP:RS. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
We should not be hasty. Wikipedia is not the Greek or Macedonian governments or the international political system. Any changes of the sort sought here should take other factors into consideration as well. @AjaxSmack makes fine points regarding that.Resnjari (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Is not about being "hasty" I am afraid. It is about respecting WP:RS. Wikipedia should reflect on facts and accuracy, and that's why we are here. The article's current name is not accurate nor the country's name anymore. What would you like Wikipedia to do? Call a country by a name it no longer uses? --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
If its RS then one should wait a while until enough of it accumulates before a pagemove is initiated. The process of international formalities is not over and are still taking their course.Resnjari (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia isn't dependent on international formalities. An example is Wikipedia using "Republic of Macedonia" when the UN and most of the world used "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". But whatever. The world is moving, no matter if we agree or disagree with. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
If I may join this chat, I fail to see the need to wait more. The agreement clearly came into force and so did the constitutional changes, postponing the move once again suggests some people have hard time accepting this new reality, but that's just me.Macedonicus (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Philly boy92: I am resigned that my opposition is an exercise in futility, so I'll admit that it's less than constructive. Macedonia (country) or simply Macedonia would be more in line with what WP:UCN/WP:OFFICIALNAMES calls for, but I agree that there is a very good likelihood that "North Macedonia" will soon be the best choice, so a short-term move to one of those titles is not warranted. I simply oppose a hurried move by brute force mass-voting based on predictions of the future, all of which are counter to policy. (NB User:Amakuru's comments below for further concerns.) If even a few more Google News results reflected use of the new name, I would not oppose, but it's still overwhelmingly "Macedonia" there. —  AjaxSmack  16:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
How do you expect the new name to become mainstream, and widely used by the media and the public if sites like Wikipedia stick to the defunct/outdated one? Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia (and no.5 site in traffic globally) serves the purpose of informing and educating people as a reliable source. Wouldn't it be a bit of a paradox adopting the new name as a result of it being used overwhelmingly?StevenHal (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Just asking Don't we have to wait until it's official on 15 Feb like someome said above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.158.188.136 (talk) 2019-02-09T02:56:36 (UTC)
North Macedonia is already the official name for that country. 15 February is just one of several deadlines. For signposts, border crossings, diplomatic ranks, building and institution names, the deadline is 7 days from today (15 February 2019). For Passports, the deadline is 5 years from today (2024), etc. The deadlines have nothing to do with the name being official or not, is about making the Name Change financially more affordable and manageable for the state budget. --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what Antondimak said. And I shall note the RfC won't be closed sooner than 7 days, which coincides with 15th February. Editors simply are asked to see if there is consensus about moving the article by then. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait a moment – when a country changes its name it informs international community about this. We should wait till Macedonian government officially inform about this name change. Till now it is only Wikipedia’s speculation (based on interpretation of documents) that Macedonia has already changed name, without official confirmation of this fact. Aotearoa (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until February 15 – Just wait until the official renaming takes place (which is less than a week from now). Vida0007 (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Needless to say, but whenever we vote for "Move" or for "Wait until deadline", technically is the same, since the RfC will be open for a bare minimum of 1 week. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
North Macedonia is the short form of the new official name, and WP:PRECISE enough to be a good choice for the article title. Keep "also known as Macedonia" in the WP:LEAD sentence until we witness the gradual change in common usage of the term, then change that wording to "previously known as ...". A good example for wording might be Republic of Ireland. Shadowmorph ^"^ 08:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Comment. A good portion of the other user comments above does not seem to take into account Wikipedia's policies but come out as just personal opinions. This is not a poll, or we could run the danger of brigading from various sources, so careful consideration and current policies should apply. I will always stand in support of the current stable situation of Macedonia being a disambigation page. Of course well justified opinions are welcome. Like, there is some merit to suggestions to use a different disambiguator like Macedonia (country) (e.g. like Georgia (country)) but I would like to refer those users to the old discussion where that option didn't gather enough support. In a nutshell the reason is that Macedonia is also a country (even though an ancient one) and semiological confusion would arise. Also North Macedonia, a title with no parenthesis is much better form and since it is now by no way less valid as a name, I suggest that.Shadowmorph ^"^ 09:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move. It is official now, I don't see a reason for delay. Dante 80 (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until the dust settles down and becames clear which term is mostly prefered by RS. Official name is of little relevance, secondary Reliable Sources are of much greater importance. Official name should be inserted in the first sentence of the article though.Cinadon36 (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, the current page title is not the prefered one by RS & news already and it will not even be the official (constitutional) one in a while. There were a whole lot of other vectors in the discussion for the naming of all related pages in WP:NCMAC. You can check also my comment above for more information. Also waiting too long and serving a factually incorrect title does not accomplish anything constructive.Shadowmorph ^"^ 09:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move As per WP:OFFICIALNAME. Also, North Macedonia is now soon to be member of NATO since Greece ratified the protocol and you even see news agencies starting referring to them as such. There is no reason to not wait or procrastinate. Othon I (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Othon I North Macedonia is not a member of NATO – the Greek government ratified the protocol to start negotiations to become a member, something that could take up until 2030 to be completed (according to Tsipras). --Michail (blah) 11:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, should have written soon to be member of NATO. Thanks for pointing out. Othon I (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move provided that WP:MOSMAC is updated, because what's the rush? Typically is not official yet and official sources prefer to use the term future Republic of North Macedonia, while the name change is slowly catching on with the media. It's obvious though that everything is moving in full speed for the implementation of the agreement [1], [2], so eventually we have to implement the changes in wikipedia too --Argean (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
PS. And we should not forget that WP:MOSMAC still applies and some of the naming conventions need to be reviewed and updated. --Argean (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment to administrators: This is another thing too as @Argean notes. If this article gets changed, then what are the ramifications for other articles that have the words "Republic of Macedonia" in their title? Will editors go and unilaterally change those articles too as they may cite this article getting changed as a precedent. Or will other editors who contest those changes cite that WP:MOSMAC is in force and still applies everywhere else. The potential for it becoming a mess and edit wars flaring up are wide ranging. Do administrators really want to police silly disputes via WP:ARBCOM when MOSMAC has not been updated ? This pagemove is too soon when instead it should be put off a while and an Arbcom-endorsed process be convened. There, editors and administrators can discuss how MOSMAC is to be updated, how and what editing conventions will apply (or can they be applied to Wikipedia as this is an encyclopedia not international relations of governments) to articles in relation to things outlined in the Prespa agreement and so on.Resnjari (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Relax for some days and evaluate the situation closer to 15 Feb, when the official name change will take place and this RM is getting closer to closing. Wikipedia is not a news agency. --T*U (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move I think after Greece's ratification of the NATO protocol the Prespa Agreement is in full force so no need to wait further. Weatherextremes (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move The time has come Jurryaany (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move when the time has come. The renaming will have become effective by the time this RM reaches its time to close, so just please keep it open until then. The last political steps have been taken; the rest is really just paperwork at this time. And I'm repeating what I said in the last RM: the argument that we should wait further to see whether the name actually catches on in reliable sources would be a good one if this page was now at plain "Macedonia". There is a realistic chance that plain "Macedonia" might continue to be used informally by a majority of international sources. But full "Republic of Macedonia" will most certainly vanish, once it's no longer official, so leaving the article at this title is really not an option. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move As pointed out many times above, “Republic of Macedonia” is no longer relevant, at least not in English. And here’s another RS for y’all: [3] —ThorstenNY (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move Per Constitutional amendement, as of yesterday official name is Republic of North Macedonia. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now per WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. I'm not sure where all these comments saying "Move" have come from, but they seem to be based on an incorrect understanding of our naming policies. If WP:Reliable sources start using the name routinely then we should follow suit, but legal and diplomatic decisions have little bearing on the matter. There is no hurry on this,let us wait and see how it pans out. Also this is WP :NOTAVOTE so piling on with move comments doesn't change the outcome.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Various reliable sources have already published articles using the new name (Euronews, RadioFreeEurope, CNN, BBC, The Economist, Der Spiegel), and, as Fut.Perf. pointed out, the current title of "Republic of Macedonia" is essentially obsolete. Antondimak (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose. Instead of moving through RM, we should start the Arbcom-endorsed process to change WP:MOSMAC without prejudging the outcome of that process.
The issues I raised in the previous RM have not changed.
WP:MOSMAC currently represents the Arbcom-endorsed binding consensus on this point, and it says this article should be at Republic of Macedonia. There is a mechanism for changing WP:MOSMAC - a 30-day RFC closed by three admins - and whatever its outcome this WP:RM will not meet the standard of consensus required.
If this discussion closes with a move to another name, the closer needs to be very clear on the scope of the decision. For example, are editors allowed to replace existing references to the Republic of Macedonia with North Macedonia on other articles - given that this would clearly break the current (and explicitly binding) text of WP:MOSMAC? And what about the thornier issues? Are the people living in North Macedonia to be called Macedonians or North Macedonians? What about the Macedonian ethnic group - is it now the North Macedonian ethnic group? What about historical references to the Republic of Macedonia in the period 1991-2019?
Given the history of this dispute, I do not see that it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia to deliberately break WP:MOSMAC in some areas and then expect it to be upheld rigidly in others, or to assume that all editors will agree on what exactly amounts to WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:IAR variation from the rule. Far better to change it through the formal process that we've been told to use, a process that will result in a new WP:MOSMAC that we can then follow consistently. Kahastok talk 12:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment Agree 100% with Kahastok. As I said before there is no rush for making such changes, before we establish that there is the necessary WP:CONSENSUS. If there are any procedural doubts that the results of this WP:RM might be not enough to become binding (and based on the history of the dispute this is highly possible), I suggest that the process should be frozen until we initiate the reviewing mechanism on WP:MOSMAC. --Argean (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think there is any reason, or anyone proposing, to change how we call the langauge or the ethnic group, and if there is it is a completely different topic. I agree that mentions to the country during the 1991-2019 period are a problem. Antondimak (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Yet, there is an obvious disagreement on renaming various related pages, where the adjectival prefix "North" should or should not be used, according to the provisions of the agreement. I believe that we should review the whole naming issue en bloc to avoid unnecessary inconsistencies and misunderstandings that can lead to an endless new chain of edit warring. --Argean (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes indeed, i hope administrators take this into account before going through with any changes.Resnjari (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a note at the top of WP:MOSMAC explicitly permitting the move of Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia. I understand your concern about a slippery slope here, but if we're following MOSMAC, we're following MOSMAC, and MOSMAC says it's kosher to move this page and sort out the rest later. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
If this RM closes with a move, it means that we are setting aside the first and most important decision made by WP:MOSMAC.
If we ignore our supposedly "binding and enforceable" guideline in this of all issues, we effectively overturn that guideline. The consensus to follow WP:MOSMAC becomes obsolete. And that does open all these other questions, whether we want it to or not.
It's clear from the discussion below that the answers to these issues is not clear-cut, and given history they are a likely cause of major disruption across hundreds of articles that currently refer to Macedonians and to the Republic of Macedonia. We can almost entirely avoid that disruption by following our own procedures to change WP:MOSMAC. Kahastok talk 14:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Kahastok, the people living in North Macedonia will be called North Macedonians, Macedonians will be called just the ethnic Macedonians, so, the Macedonian ethnic group is not now North Macedonian ethnic group, there is no North Macedonian ethnic group, the term North Macedonian/s will be just a demonym who will cover all the people who live in North Macedonia, and those people are Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Romani, Serbs, Bosniaks, Aromanians, Bulgarians etc. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment:Not so fast. WP:MOSMAC has not been updated and the Prespa agreement outlines that the word Macedonian applies not only to ethnicity but citizenship as well. It needs to be discussed as to where and what circumstances terms like "North Macedonian" apply. I would to also note that when Albanian parties in Macedonia supported this name change deal (it was their votes that got it through), Zaev promised that the term Macedonian would also apply to citizenship. There was nothing about "North Macedonian" being the formula. So having ethnic communities in Macedonia as "North Macedonian Albanians" or "North Macedonian Turks" was not part of the deal and problematic for its application here in Wikipedia. This needs to be discussed via an Arbcom process to update MOSMAC before anything big is done.Resnjari (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The agreement specifically says that the adjectival form of the name is 'of North Macedonia', i.e. North Macedonian. Euronews for example uses this when it says the North Macedonian constitution. The US Senate also used the term (North Macedonian Prime Minister Zoran Zaev. Also, like Sashko1999 pointed out, the nationality specified it not "Macedonian". It is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". --Michail (blah) 14:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The adjectival form "of North Macedonia", potentially used interchangeably with "North Macedonian", refers only to the the State, its official organs, and other public entities, so let's try to avoid making any further assumptions where it should apply, apart from the explicitly stated uses. And a warm request to all the editors. Could we please all stay on the subject, which here is the specific WP:RM? I guess that there will be a lot of time to discuss on all the name issues, provided that the discussion on reviewing WP:MOSMAC is eventually initiated. --Argean (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
In relation to this issue, if the article name changes here, then by default would that meant all article that have the Republic of Macedonia in their title gets changed, or do separate RfC apply in those contexts ? Any change here will have consequences for other Macedonia articles. Any changes should be delayed until MOSMAC is updated and then everyone will know how to apply the guidelines on pages.Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari, the citizenship of North Macedonia isn't Macedonian, it's Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, but did for example we should call the Primer Minister of North Macedonia Zoran Zaev a Macedonian/citizen of Republic of North Macedonia Primer Minister or North Macedonian Primer Minister? We have a similar situation with North Korea, there the citizenship of the country is just Korean, but how we call the citizens of North Korea?, we call them North Koreans and that term refers to all people who live in North Korea, and those people are Koreans, Han Chinese, Japanese etc. Also, we call the President of North Korea a North Korean politician, not Korean, we call the footballers from North Korea a North Korean footballers, not Korean etc. etc. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

With North Korea, there is a South Korea, hence the need to distinguish. In the world there is only one Republic of Macedonia and its the only country that has Macedonia within its name, even with the name change. So in relation to citizenship I fail to see why it should change for Wikipedia the way its been for more then a decade now with just having it Macedonian. Like i said the term Macedonian applies to citizen (as stipulated in the Prespa agreement) and it needs to be discussed vis a vis on if and how North Macedonian would be used as well (in what contexts if or would it be appropriate -and that's if the community gets consensus on having such a term exist via an Arbcom process).Resnjari (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
FYI, just in case someone here isn't aware: per Prespa Agreement, there are 2 demonyms: one for state and diplomatic-related purposes, and one for citizen-related purposes. The demonym for diplomats, officials, institutions and governmental bodies in the country is "North Macedonian" (i.e. North Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, North Macedonian Prime Minister, North Macedonian Passports, etc) while for citizens is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia". -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
There is South Africa and there is not North Africa and the demonym for South Africa is South African/s, not African/s.
There is South Sudan and there is not North Sudan and the demonym for South Sudan is South Sudanese/s, not Sudanese/s.
There is South Ossetia and there is no North Ossetia and the demonym for South Ossetia is South Ossetian/s, not Ossetian/s.
In the future the term Macedonian/s refers just as an ethnonym for the ethnic Macedonians and as an geographical term for the all citizens of the geographical region of Macedonia, it can't refers to the all citizens of the country North Macedonia, because in this country don't live just ethnic Macedonians.
Here is a source that the adjective for North Macedonia is North Macedonian, not Macedonian.
https://www.neweurope.eu/article/welcome-north-macedonia/ New Europe will now refer to North Macedonia, the country’s newly-approved constitutional name. We have been careful to refer to the country as Macedonia/FYROM up to this point and will use that term only in a historical context or if the discussion requires this for clarity. We will use the adjective “North Macedonian” as needed, slightly shorter than the term “of North Macedonia” which the Prespes deal spells out. Sashko1999 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Until MOSMAC gets updated no changes should occur.Resnjari (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm really tempted to challenge the WP:NEUTRALITY of the very few sources that are using the term, but a quick google search can give a clue to everyone (I don't know if the fact that New Europe has a Greek editor is accidental). For now I think that the lack of WP:VERIFIABILITY and lack of WP:CONSENSUS are good enough reasons to withhold such proposals. --Argean (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sashko1999: Actually, North Ossetia does exist, but not as an independent state. It's people are known as North Ossetians so your point is still valid. Similarly North Africa is a region (bigger than a single state) and the people that inhabit it are often known as North Africans, again concurring with your point. However, North Sudan is what some argue that Sudan should now actually be called, after the succession of the south, but the sudanese themselves consider this somewhat insulting. This doesn't stop the media often times calling them North Sudanese or the state North Sudan. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Wiz9999:, we are talking here about the independent states, not about the regions, federal subjects, provinces and similar. If we talk and about the regions/federal subjects/provinces, than yes, North Ossetia exist as a region and also as a federal subject who is part of the independent state Russia. It's people there, as you said, are known as North Ossetians, but that's just a regional demonym, not and a state. North Africa is a also a region, similar to Northern Europe in Europe for example, and the demonym North Africans is also just a regional demonym who refers to the residents from this region. North Macedonia is a also region, but in the same time is and independent state, the other two parts of the region of Macedonia are just regions, not and independent states, those regions are South Macedonia, who is part of the independent state Greece, and East Macedonia who is part of the independent state Bulgaria. As and the prevous ones, amd this case, the demonyms South Macedonians and East Macedonians are just a regional demonyms, and the demonym North Macedonians beside regional, it's and state demonym. To say and the people who live in the regions of South and East Macedonia (mostly ethnic Greeks and Bulgarians) call themselves just Macedonians in a regional sense, not South and East Macedonians. As regards to the Sudan, I don't know how it should be called, but I know that it's offical name is Republic of the Sudan, not Republic of the North Sudan, so, we have Sudan and South Sudan and Sudanese and South Sudanese, we don't have North Sudan and North Sudanese. Sashko1999 (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Your insinuation here that only demonyms from 'independent states' matter is quite incorrect. It is perfectly fine and acceptable to call people from Scotland "Scottish" even though they are also "British" both labels are correct. By the way, Greeks would find the terms "South Macedonians" and "South Macedonia" insulting, because, as far as they are concerned, "Macedonia" does not extend outside of Greece. Greece has a region called "Eastern Macedonia", so they would also find "East Macedonia"/"East Macedonian" (referring to the Bulgarian territory & people) insulting. It would be incorrect to dismiss so easily regional demonyms and only consider national ones. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, if is like you are saying, then my arguments why the demonym fo North Macedonia should be North Macedonian/s are even more bigger, because the demonym Macedonian/s is a regional demonym in Greece and Bulgaria, so, I don't think that is correct this demonym to be and a demonym for a country with the name North Macedonia. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: Both nations already signed the agreement and this is the best option for us to defuse the situation and be able to edit Macedonia related articles (be it North Macedonia or Greek Macedonia) without constant complains of not being up to date or taking sides. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment to those basing their opposition on MOSMAC: WP:MOSMAC deals with the conflicts that arose from Greece’s insistence on calling the country FYROM, while the country itself called itself Republic of Macedonia. The Prespa Agreement resolved this conflict. This appears to render MOSMAC moot as far as the current, bilaterally-agreed-upon name North Macedonia is concerned. (MOSMAC might still be relevant for referring to events related to the country between 1991 and early February 2019.) —ThorstenNY (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
So far no Arbcom process has made MOSMAC redundant. Until such time its still applicable on Wikipedia.Resnjari (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
There are still editors insisting on FYROM. FTR. Kahastok talk 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
MOSMAC is about a country “whose name is politically disputed.” The text of MOSMAC itself says what its scope is. Its scope is any names that are/may be in dispute. Its scope cannot be names of or relating to the country which are not in dispute. I’m fine with waiting until we have RS photos of new border signs, until the UN and/or other governments have acknowledged “North Macedonia.” But we all know that this is happening within the next week. Are you really proposing that we wait an additional 30 days beyond that for some ARBCOM process to play out? —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, i'm insisting that we wait until its properly implemented. On MOSMAC it exists because Macedonia is a complex issue. Just because an international agreement was struck and agreed to by elites from both countries (the only elite who had the democratic mandate to vote for that name change were the Albanians of Macedonia, as ethnic Albanians overwhelmingly voted in the referendum for the change), both a majority of Macedonians and Greeks are against this agreement. If MOSMAC is not updated various prejudices or "viewpoints" may guide those editors to be disruptive and push certain views from either a nationalistic and or fringe point of view.Resnjari (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I wanted the MOSMAC RFC to start two weeks ago - and said so in the first RM. The longer we delay through processes that don't meet the standard of consensus required, the longer it will take to adopt the new name. If we think there's a serious risk of the new name not getting used then there's no reason why the change cannot be made conditional.
But unless Arbcom themselves tell us that the process is no longer required and that MOSMAC can be changed by the normal process, then yes, I think it is better to delay by a couple of weeks than to create months of problems for ourselves. Kahastok talk 17:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Well said @Kahastok and i concur with your thoughts.Resnjari (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kahastok and @Resnjari: Exactly my thoughts. I can't see why an agreement between two governments will somehow legally bind all editors to comply, without having a set of rules that clearly set the framework for all related articles. The agreement has not resolved all the sides of the long established dispute (although is in the right direction) and I can't see how it will prevent various editors to apply their own views on the "right" terminology, if we eliminate WP:MOSMAC. As Kahastok said the discussion on reviewing WP:MOSMAC should have started at least 2 weeks ago and I can't see why everybody is rushing to change the name of the article, without establishing a new comprehensive consensus for all the issues that will clearly arise as a consequence. We are really heading to a new WP:ARBMAC, aren't we? --Argean (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kahastok:, @Resnjari:, @Argean: Surely the three of you see the need for urgency regarding the discussions over WP:MOSMAC, and the emergence of a new consensus on that policy, considering the overwhelming support by editors at large to make this article move happen. Just look at what is occurring in this lengthy discussion! Now I am very well aware that the naming dispute is not over, in fact, it is far from it. I know that many in Greece will still refuse to refer to the FYROM people as "North Macedonian". Even THAT will be going to far for them. Similarly, in FYROM many will refuse to give up the claim to their state being called "Macedonia". We will need a firm WP:MOSMAC that reflects the essentially predominant term of "North Macedonia", which effectively didn't exist previously, in order to prevent future conflict. I know this process takes 30 days min. for RFC, which is why we need to expedite its initiation, since many will now be insisting on performing the name change themselves across hundreds of other articles that mention this state and its people/language regardless of what happens with this article. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@WIz9999 The process of drafting an RfC for a reviewed/updated WP:MOSMAC has already started here. We are well aware that this will take time and personally I don't think that this should stop the RM on the current article, since the support is overwhelming and the official renaming of the country will apparently happen in the next few days. I'm already afraid that we are too late though and the fact that all articles (apart from the current one?) are currently protected with WP:MOSMAC per ARBMAC2, this will unfortunately cause an awful amount of misunderstandings and edit warring. --Argean (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
That is EXACTLY what concerns me. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Wiz9999: I reposted the link for the discussion on drafting a new RFC in a new section for better clarity. At least let's try to speed up the process now, although it will take more than 30 days per ARBMAC2. --Argean (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I've been quite impatient to get the RFC process going. The earlier we sort this, the less time we're out of kilter with what people expect, the less we're going to get helpful people unwittingly sparking problems by prematurely fixing things for us.
And given some of the arguments, and the fact that the RFC process is now in train, I've been reviewing my position on this RM. But my conclusion is the same. I think it will be far easier to limit disruption if we hold this article where it is until the MOSMAC process is complete. And I see no reason to rush this through to keep this article up-to-date if every other article will be staying out of date. Kahastok talk 18:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kahastok: WP:MOSMAC itself tells us (right on top) to use common sense. It flies in the face of said common sense to insist on continuing to call the country Republic of Macedonia for an entire months or so after the authorities in Skopje have begun to replace signs using that now obsolete name. MOSMAC’s purpose was to reconcile a conflict between governments. That conflict is now resolved. —ThorstenNY (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"MOSMAC’s purpose was to reconcile a conflict between governments." It is a bold editor to think that a simple wikipedia policy could resolve anything between two governments at loggerheads with each other. WP:MOSMAC's purpose was not to "resolve" anything, it exists simply to address how WE as EN.Wikipedia editors handle what is clearly a contentious series of issues that divides opinions (and not just Greek and North Macedonia opinions). It serves to take as neutral a stance as possible on the issue, while defining specific terminology to be used to best hold this neutral position. But otherwise, yes I agree with you that common sense here dictates to not hold back this specific page's move request in light of the overwhelming need for EN.Wikipedia to reflect this historic name change. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
What did I say about common sense, @Wiz9999? ;) Of course MOSMAC’s only objective was to reconcile this conflict as far as it pertained to usage on WP. Can we not assume the most basic context? —ThorstenNY (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
But changes to other articles are still going to have to wait for WP:MOSMAC. That's the thing. Some of the changes that need to be made to WP:MOSMAC to reflect this name change are potentially controversial, and because of how disruptive this issue has been in the past these disputes need to be resolved before we can proceed with making the changes.
If it is common sense to rename this article, it is also common sense to move ahead with changes on all the articles that discuss the country in question. And if we could do that that would work - as it worked with the recent rename at Eswatini. But we can't, because WP:MOSMAC doesn't allow it. So we as editors on related articles end up in an impossible position. We are expected - nay, required, according to an Arbcom decision - to revert helpful editors propagating the change, in order to adhere to a rule that is being broken in the most prominent possible way. Kahastok talk 19:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The only reason why I say it is "common sense" to move this article early (on the 15th) is because, if we do not move forward with this at the appropriate time, we will get a tidal wave of edit requests on this page to perform the move by less experienced wikipedia editors. It honestly just makes the most sense to not resist this, due to the overwhelming consensus on this single article's naming issue. The rest of wikipedia is another matter, it would be better if our time was spent monitoring and preventing premature term changes to demonyms, adjectives, language, ethnicity (you know there will be many instances of these changes occurring in articles no matter what) than to waste our time refusing this article's name change again, and again, and again, and again for the next month. We are heading for consensus on this single page, just let it happen. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. I'm well aware of which way the discussion is going, and I'm also aware that it's unrealistic to expect it to suddenly change direction.
But I think it is useful for my concerns to be at least heard and understood, even if others weigh up the pros and cons and come to a different conclusion from me. Kahastok talk 18:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait. Many people above claim that the Prespa agreement entered into force on 8 February 2019. Do you have any reliable sources for this? According to the agreement (article 2.4) it enters into force once the ratification processes for both the Prespa agreeement and the Nato accession protocol have been completed. Can anyone confirm that the ratification instruments have been deposited? It is not enough with just the consent of the Greek parliament... --Glentamara (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

On January 26 2019 the Greek parliament ratified the agreement, after the one of North Macedonia did. On February 8 2019 it ratified the Nato accession protocol. It's essentially in force now. North Macedonia is changing its border signs. Antondimak (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
No. Formal ratification is done by the head of state or the government, not the parliament. And the process is completed once the ratification instruments are deposited with the secretary-general of the United Nations. Here is an official source confirming that the agreement is not yet in force: [4]. --Glentamara (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Glentamara: sorry, but the Prespa Agreement is already in full force since yesterday, and today the authorities of the Republic of North Macedonia already begun replacing the country's road signposts and border stations, with the Bodgorica Border Station at the Greece-Macedonia borders, chosen for symbolic reasons, to being the first of all the country's border stations that see its "Republic of Macedonia" updated into "Republic of North Macedonia": [5] -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Please provide a source confirming your claim that the Prespa agreement is in force. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Skopje it is not, see reference above. --Glentamara (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Reply is right below: [6] -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait then Move - The link supplied by Glentamara above is pretty persuasive to me. Contrary to comments above, the agreement is not in force as of 9 Feb 2019, and we will be getting an update in a matter of days once it is. (If you need further evidence, look no further than the header graphic of the very government website it is posted on). The Tom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@The TomFor your information, today the authorities in the Republic of North Macedonia already begun replacing road signposts and such, with the Bodgorica Border Station on Greece-Macedonia borders being the first one, chosen for symbolic reasons. I understand some editors may want to be cautious and wait until 15th February Deadline, but thing is, if the Prespa Agreement wasn't in force, the whole progress of renaming the country's signposts and names, shouldn't be happening at all: [7] I understand that there is some confusion, but there is no doubt that the naming change procedures have begun today, as planned. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The renaming process might have started, but that does not mean that the country has officially changed its name. It might only be practical preparations. Please provide references confirming your claims: (1) that the Prespa agreement has entered into force and (2) that there is a deadline 15 February 2019. --Glentamara (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Al Jazeera RFE/RL Associated Press all indicate this was the last step and the name of the country is now North Macedonia. It's all over but the procedural changes and fixes, which will literally take years. Are we still going to have this article parked at a name that is now an artifact of history four years from now because not every Macedonian passport will have had "North" added to it, and/or some people still insist on calling the country "Skopje" or "FYROM"? The name of the country is North Macedonia. The process of moving this article has been properly initiated; it should move forward based on Wikipedia policy and good faith. I see no reason to support keeping this page under an inoperative constitutional name past the RfC period, personally. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
No one saying to hold out that long. However Wikipedia is not a news organisation. Journalists from news organisations have to just be concerned with only their own content. Most don't have to implement updates on a complex interconnected system of webpages like Wikipedia that deal with so many aspects of Macedonia and have editors with different knowledge backgrounds, skills and perspectives. So changes to this main page will have ramifications to many others. If rushed and nothing is noted about how a change here would be handled for other articles then the chances for a large mess, of edit wars to flare up are big. As of now WP:MOSMAC is still in force. Administrators need to take into account these other aspects as well.Resnjari (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Glentamara, all these developments are occuring this week and in accordance with the plans. Here are all the remaining steps's details now that legal requirements of the the Final Agreement (aka Prespa Agreement) are fullfilled:
“After the fulfillment of all legal requirements for the entry into force of the Final Agreement and the Constitutional Amendments, the Government of the Republic of Macedonia will publish the date of entry into force of the Constitutional Amendments and the Constitutional Law in the Official Gazette,”
“After that, the Republic of North Macedonia and Greece will submit a joint letter to the UN Secretary General, informing António Guterres of the date of entry into force of the Final Agreement, thus ending the decades-long bilateral dispute between the two countries,”
After this, the Republic of Northern Macedonia will inform, in an appropriate manner, the UN Secretariat, the member states, the UN observer countries, as well as all the other international organisations of which it is a member, about the changes that have occurred.
“All this is expected to happen in the next few days”.
Source: [8]. As I have already informed you all in the previous RfC, about 2 weeks ago, and I am re-posting it here, you can see what these final steps are and when they are going to happen (the next few days - according to some Greek media, this Monday). As far as I am aware, there are no further legal procedures behind the ratification of the NATO protocol by the Greek parliament which already happened yesterday. The Prespa Agreement's legal requirements have already been fullfilled. Now it is the other side which has a deadline until 15 February 2019, for updating all of the country's the signposts, institution names, state offices and such, to the country's new name. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The Prespa treaty is obviously not yet in force (see the Macedoninan Ministry of Foreign Affairs), neither are the constitutional amendments of the Macedonian constitution. There is a common misconception among journalists that they think that a parliament ratifies treaties (we had the same misconception when, e.g., the Lisbon Treaty was ratified). Sure, a parliament may "ratify" a treaty in the sense that it approves it. Formal ratification, in the sense of international law, however, is done by a head of state (or in some case a government), most often after the parliament has given its approval. Ratification is done by signing and sealing a ratification instrument, a formal letter that confirms that a state is legally bound by a treaty. This instrument is then sent either to the other contracting party or to the depositary of the treaty. No one has so far provided a source confirming that the Prespa treaty has entered into force or that the Maceonian constitutional amendments have entered into force. On the contrary, we have several sources confirming the opposite. --Glentamara (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you are perhaps being a little bit too punctilious about this. The change will have officially happened before this request has had time to close. --Michail (blah) 21:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
For me it's perfectly fine to move ahead with the renaming of the article. But I don't like that people here claim that the Prespa treaty has entered into force nor that Macedonia would already have officially changed its name to North Macedonia without providing any sources for it, while there are several sources confirming the opposite. --Glentamara (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Glentamara:, you might want to read this. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of North Macedonia, in line with the Prespa Agreement, begun using the new name for the country, on 9 February 2019, and so, now it refers to the country as Republic of North Macedonia. You say the Prespa Agreement hasn't come into force, yet why its provision s are coming into force? I think you will need read this report as well: [9] -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The news article you are refering to is in turn refering to the statement of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs that I have already linked to above. Here it comes again: [10]. Please read it CAREFULLY and you will understand that the name change has not taken place yet, neither has the Prespa treaty entered into force. They are using "the Republic of North Macedonia" when refering to what Macedonia and Greece will do AFTER Macedonian authorities have published the constitutional amendments in the official gazette. At that time the country will have that name, but not before. --Glentamara (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Glentamara: still I wasn't convinced by the sources you provided, as the sources in the Greek language I had, claimed otherwise, that the Katrougalo's signature of the Ratification law, is what puts the Prespa Agreement in full force. Apparently that wasn't true. At last, now we can say for certain that the date the Prespa Agreement enters full force, is today, 12 February 2018 and this time I can confirm this via both Greek, Macedonian and English sources at same time. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident: Yup, now we agree. --Glentamara (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

NOT MOVE : Its true that since yesterday Macedonia has been changing its name in maps, stations etc. However these actions do not constitute the de jure implementation of the Prespa Agreement.Any country can call (if its government wants) Macedonia as North Macedonia, but this is totally a de dacto action because no country has been informed OFFICIALLY from Macedonia about the name change. When Macedonia informs the UN and its members (and other international organisations) that the country must be called North Macedonia from now on , THAT is the moment for us to change the name of the wiki page. Engelleip96 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Move' Are we discussing if Earth is flat? The agreement is done. All approval steps have been followed. If everyone in here have suddenly become so legally sensitive, then use FYROM that was always the legally International name. This sensitivity in wiki came 25 years too late. Change the name, and start arguing if the local Albanians are North Macedonians or Macedonians! Now that will be fun. But for now, the name is settled...(for now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.252.121 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Your comments are interesting. I'm curious to know IP 121.44.252.121, are you a returning editor or someone new?Resnjari (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari: no WP:PersonalAttacks please. Even IPs can participate in discussions. I recommend the admins here check the IP just in case, but Resnjari, avoid such comments in the future. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh give it a rest. No one mentioned Albanians apart from me. The IP whoever it is (a returning editor or a newbie) already went down the targeting road as per WP:NATIONALIST.Resnjari (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
For real? Then my apologies. In that case ignore my comment. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Kahastok above, that this should be speedily procedurally closed. Since the naming convention governing this is under ARBCOM sanctions, the standard RM process does not have the authority to make this change. I would suggest a filing at WP:ARCA should be the next step so that we get an opinion from ARBCOM on how to proceed.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Note: I've posted a draft with some suggestions for that RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia), but personally I'd still suggest to allow this RM to go ahead here, since by the time of its regular closure the present title "Republic of Macedonia" will simply no longer be correct and should be allowed to be updated in a timely manner, without waiting for another month of a big RfC. It would be different if the article was now at a title represnting its "common name", because that common name might well continue to remain as such in practice for at least a while, but "Republic of Macedonia" simply isn't that, and never was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
ok, but if we move this article, some kind of disclaimer should exist that other articles are off limits until MOSMAC is updated so this is contained. Otherwise there will highly likely be edit wars over page names all over the place etc. Just sayin'Resnjari (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Resnjari, I disagree with you again (unfortunately). Moving the state-related articles such as Economy of the Republic of Macedonia to Economy of the Republic of North Macedonia, shouldn't be restricted by the ongoing MOSMAC procedures, provided that they are done on the same grounds as the current Move Request. If the current article is moved successfully and without any issues, then I cant see why would it be a problem to move the other state-related articles as well. If this RM is discussed excessively and it has been concluded that there wouldn't be any unforeseen complications with MR for the other articles, then I am up for it. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry to interfere, but apart from the obvious cases of state-related articles that are usually formulated as "of the Republic of Macedonia", there is a large number of articles that is not clear if and when, if ever, should be renamed, e.g. Macedonia national football team, Macedonian Orthodox Church, Macedonian Stock Exchange, Macedonian Radio Television, etc. And I don't even want to think what will happen to articles that use "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" in historical context or to articles that contain biographies, where the use of "Macedonian" vs "North Macedonian" will be challenged by many editors. It's obvious that we need a consensus on reviewing WP:MOSMAC, and that should not necessarily prevent the current RM, provided that we get a green light from the ARBCOM that we don't breach MOSMAC with this move. --Argean (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
According to the Prespa Agreement, all public entities, as well as those related to/funded by the state, its organs, private entities funded by the state as well, or established under the state's law are subject to name change as well. I'm pretty sure the National Footbal Team, the Stock Exchange, the Orthodox Church, the Public Radio Television, etc. are, if not state owned, public, or enjoy state funding. So it's more than obvious these institutions follow the new constitutional name. You seem to try to push the new name out of use as much as possible already.StevenHal (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm well aware that all public entities are obliged to follow the new name and I expect them to do so in due time, and I suppose that is the time to rename their relevant pages. I'm reminding though why we have WP:MOSMAC and I've made suggestions on how it should be updated to match the provisions of the agreement. What we don't need is a new state of ambiguity that will allow editors to act based on their own interpretations of the agreement and circumvent the established (or hopefuly re-established) consensus. --Argean (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The renaming of relevant pages should be done in an organized fashion with a common approach, with that I agree, and according to the Agreement of course. And the Agreement is not as vague on this particular issue as you try to make it seem. It is pretty clear on who should/shouldn't adopt the new name. To repeat myself and conclude, public/national institutions, state owned institutions, state funded institutions, institutions established under the state's laws, as well as private institutions, companies, etc. which enjoy funding/promotion by the state (exported products of private companies e.g.), or were established under its laws, SHOULD follow the new name. Only independent private institutions don't have to adopt the new name if they do not wish to do so. Questioning the renaming of the country's NATIONAL football team, or PUBLIC radio television, is a bit suspicious, and hopefully doesn't serve any pruposes. I have noticed, a great deal of your comments on these discussions suggest reducing the use of the new name as much as possible, even in violation of the Agreement, and I don't understand why. I'm definitely for a non-hasty, moderate approach on this, but for issues that are truly vague, and not crystal clear.StevenHal (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, eventually I can see that we do agree. I just want to remind you that not every editor knows by heart all the articles of the agreement (not that they are supposed to) and that is the reason that we need a reviewed and updated guideline for everyone to follow. I selected a number of pages that I assume that eventually YES should be renamed (depends on their legal status), contrasting to pages that should not be renamed if we follow the agreement word by word (e.g. Macedonian cuisine, Macedonian music), but I don't think that most editors are aware of the distinction. Actually there is an ongoing discussion on updating the guideline here and you are more than welcome to take part, since it seems that you are well informed. I will pass your comments that direct to me personally and not consider them WP:NPA, based on WP:AGF for apparently being a new editor of wikipedia, but I can't ignore the fact that so far your responses are selectively addressed. --Argean (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You are right, everyone should follow an updated guideline. Also, pages like Macedonian cuisine you mentioned, where it isn't 100% clear whether should follow the new name, could be changed as "Cuisine of North Macedonia" to avoid any confusion/controversies. Finally, I apologize for any personal offenses I may have made, it was not my purpose.StevenHal (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I'm aware that my writing style is often articulated in a way that evokes responses, but please keep in line with WP:AGF when in doubt, because this is the best way to contribute constructively. --Argean (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes exactly. Well articulated @Argean. When the architects of the Prespa accord made their agreement, i doubt they took into consideration the possible issues that might arise within Wikipedia. The current RM is the way to go with everything that @Argean outlined.Resnjari (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't help but, you just reminded me the contemporary fact about Politicians and Wikipedia: the first are the ones who cause the mess, while the latter have to clean the mess and figure out things. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
According to the Prespa Accord, the institutions funded by the Government/State will have the adjective 'of North Macedonia' or 'of the Republic of North Macedonia' and private / independent institutions can proceed use the adjective 'Macedonian'. Macedonicus (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move now. This is happening (no doubt about that), and in that case, the formal moment of name change is a logic one. Waiting procedurally for the UN or ISO3166 to be informed in this case is no added value.
@L.tak: - Don't forget your signature (--~~~~) please. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  Comment: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of North Macedonia, in line with the Prespa Agreement, begun using the new name for the country, on 9 February 2019. Source: [11] -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait (some days) until FYROM publish in government gazette when the amendments in its constitution are being implemented. After that FYROM and Greece will send a letter to UN, to inform for the date Prespa agreement is going to be implemented. Then FYROM will inform all countries and international organizations about the change of its name. [12] Xaris333 (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move - It is official as of now even if not informed as of yet or amended. I do understand why some may want to wait so it's not a strong support for moving it but since it's eventual to happen, we may as well start now. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 00:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I can't possibly be the only person, can I, who sees the notice at the very top of this talk page reading: "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Republic of Macedonia is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBMAC). The current restrictions are: Editors may not make any modifications to the official name of this country until consensus has determined that the name has officially changed." This is a proper process to determine whether that consensus exists. Calls for a speedy procedural close ignore what has been clearly laid out on this page and others. This move request and RfC is valid, and per both this page and WP:MOSMAC, there is nothing that prevents this page from being moved except the normal RM process. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait to move to "Republic of North Macedonia" until formal name change process is complete (see here [13] for source indicating that the country's government is still using "Republic of Macedonia" as its official name as of Feb. 9, and that the name change process will not be complete for "a few days"), or to move to "North Macedonia" once it can be demonstrated by reliable sources to be the WP:COMMONNAME, whichever comes first. I'm not familiar with Arbcom rules, but of course those should be respected as well.As a side note, UN notification has not been a condition for changing countries' names on Wikipedia in the past. We typically update a country's official name as soon as it is clear that the new name is considered official within the country's own law. GeoEvan (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Two points. 1) Since when do we name the article after the official designation by the UN? Since the new name has already started being used, and since we use the common name rather than the name recognised by the UN (which if we did we should have moved it to fYROM until the UN changes it in a few days), it should be changed to the name already used by governments and journalists, that being "North Macedonia". 2) When this discussion closes, all the procedural arrangements will be done and the name "North Macedonia" will be official in every legal sense. Therefore there is no point for people objecting, unless you want to keep the old name indefinitely. Antondimak (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment If anyone wonders, tomorrow Greece officially informs North Macedonia that it has fulfilled all its obligations according to the treaty, and from then on the country is obliged to use the name "North Macedonia" everywere (erga omnes). Antondimak (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Unpopular opinion The new page should be Republic of North Macedonia which redirects from Republic of Macedonia. Meanwhile Northern Macedonia should redirect to the geographical region - Macedonia (region) Wikiknol (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • "North Macedonia" will be the name if the country, and we don't need to include the whole name, like we do with ever other country. About "Northern Macedonia", maybe there should be a disambiguation page. Antondimak (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move is approved, but wait until February 15 to move to North Macedonia. However, the concerns of User:Kahastok above are valid that this is going outside the current bounds of the Arbcom-endorsed WP:MOSMAC. However, due to the historic nature of the name change, and the potential for resolution that the change ultimately represents to the Macedonian naming issue, I feel we should not stand in the way of this change. WP:MOSMAC should STILL BE IN FORCE for the rest of EN.Wikipedia, but the initiation of the updating of WP:MOSMAC should be expedited now in order to reflect the historic change that will so obviously impact it. Also, I strongly oppose any suggestion that the page be moved to "Republic of North Macedonia", as it will doubtlessly be the case that the WP:COMMONNAME for this state will end up being "North Macedonia" (in commonly spoken English), due to the common names of other states with cardinal directions similarly in their names (e.g. North Korea, South Sudan, South Africa, etc). The addressing of ambiguous redirects such as Northern Macedonia should be addressed during the updating of WP:MOSMAC - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move Official name change will happen tomorrow when the Greek government informs the Republic of North Macedonia that the Prespa Agreement is now fully ratified, and the NATO accession protocol for the country has been approved by the Greek parliament. Once this step is taken, the new constitution automatically becomes official. The 15th of February some users mention is the deadline for changing the name on sign posts, official documents, etc. and not when the name change happens.StevenHal (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: as the user who added the notice suggesting WP:MOSMAC does not apply here, I would like to say that I did so based on a short discussion at WT:MOSMAC and the apparent strong consensus to move here. It is not endorsed or sanctioned by ARBCOM. Danski454 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move now We waited for what now HAS happened. And please no nonsense about waiting for more certainty etc. I would like to remind that the current name of the article is not a good solution, it is just the fruit of a consensus. So the change is not only the right thing because it is a done deal but it also solves this issue. --APG1984 (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The naming dispute as a whole is most certainly NOT resolved by this change or the Prespa agreement. I know that many in Greece will still refuse to refer to the FYROM people as "North Macedonian". Even THAT will be going to far for them. Similarly, in FYROM many will refuse to give up the claim to their state being called "Macedonia" commonly. This article change and the Prespa Agreement as a whole certainly go a long way to helping bring about a compromise between the extreme views on either side, but to assume this is the complete end of the Macedonia naming dispute is folly. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this comment. But : right now the UN name is FYROM and the constitutional name is Macedonia and Greece refused it categorically; WP chose Republic of Macedonia as a concensual option which is seen as offensive by Greeks. All this was only somewhat satisfactory you will agree with me; yet it was the only option. North Macedonia might not solve the dispute in peoples' hearts but has the advantage of being accepted by both countries which solves all the above that is why we need to change. Otherwise what? After arguing for years, WP will end up keeping a partially satisfactory solution stemming from a State driven dispute versus the solution accepted by the said states?... --APG1984 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying that "North Macedoina" is a form that should not be adopted here or on wikipedia as a whole (I actually think it is a fiar compromise personally). But what i am saying is that there÷ are many many people that this is still unacceptable to. To consider the dispute as a whole to be "resolved" would be a mistake, and we should anticipate that there will be many disruptive edits made to articles refering to "Macedonia" in future after all these changes will seemingly go forward now. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually the Naming Dispute has been resolved. If some nationalists from both sides, as well as regular citizens who are ignorant of the Prespa Agreement and the realities in the region, have trouble grasping this, then I am afraid not even Wikipedia can help them.. All what we can do is acknowledge that the naming dispute has been RESOLVED and it is time to move ahead, while fortifying the Project from the attacks and disruptions from nationalists of both sides. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
But the new short name of the country is "North Macedonia" not "Macedonia". --Glentamara (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
"Macedonia (country)" was a contender at the big 2009 RfC, but lost out against "Republic of Macedonia". If we had chosen it back then, we could now sit back and wait until we have evidence that "North Macedonia" has really ousted "Macedonia" as the "common name" in everyday use in English (which may or may not happen soon), but since we went for the other disambiguator that also happened to be the then-current official name, we'll now have to update it somehow when that official name ceases to be valid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctand and conditional move the earliest on 22 February for the following reasons: 1) The current thread should stay open for at least 10 more days, so that the Verbal Note of the Hellenic Republic is sent to Skopje (this is expected to happen today), and, most importantly, until North Macedonia publishes the constitutional changes, confirms that they are in force and starts implementing them. We must have some concrete signs that Skopje and the international community commence indeed to use the new name. Some publishment in the MFA of NM using the new name is definitely not enough, when the Ministry in question continues to officially use (e.g. in its banner) the name "Republic of Macedonia". 2) This thread and the highly expected comprehensive RFC for the overall naming conventions should be synchronised. This is a good beginning, but I strongly believe that a proper RfC revisiting/revising MOSMAC should be expedited and somehow synchronized with this discussion. Unlike most users here, whose opinion I respect, I firmly stand my opinion that the focus should be on the overall naming conventions, whose part is this article. Again unlike most users here, I don't see MOSMAC as "moot" or "irrelevant", and I thus share the concerns of users Argean and Kahastok. On this question, I would personally appreciate and welcome the input of users with long experience on ArbCom-initiated/related procedures (e.g. Paul August above). I will close my post repeating the same question I made in the identical RfM some days ago: Why the rush?Yannismarou (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to North Macedonia once the name becomes official. Deuteranopia (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to North Macedonia. The name has become official, signboards are being changed--Kostisl (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move There is no need to wait any longer it is now guarantee that FYROM will change the name as soon as possible because we do not need to wait for any more votes that will determine the name change. All procedures and steps have been taken in order for the name change and is coming to affect very shortly sometime this week. FYROM has already started to change signs to North Macedonia[1][2] on the borders it no longer refers to itself as FYROM anymore.(Kibrislimehmet) 18:14 11 February 2019. —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move It is the right time and the best solution now. User:llympios (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilympios (talk • contribs) 21:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move; within a few days nobody's going to be using "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia" to refer to the country in current usage (except people who customarily are out of date, e.g. people who use the present tense to talk about "Zaïre" or "Czechoslovakia" in 2019), and when there's no relevant disambiguation problem, it would be absurd to use a term that's neither official nor currently common. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move It is now official.--Sp!ros (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to North Macedonia. A picture here shows the previous lettering removed from the main government building in Skopje, before a public speech where Prime Minister Zaev referred to his own country as "North Macedonia". As said higher up, similar changes have happened at the border, and North Macedonia has said they sent notifications to the UN Secretariat and member states informing them of the name change and of the end of the dispute. Place Clichy (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.thenationalherald.com/230266/deal-done-fyrom-signs-will-start-saying-north-macedonia/
  2. ^ https://greece.greekreporter.com/2019/02/11/new-signage-in-north-macedonia-reflects-name-change/

Vlada.mk the official website of the Government now displays North Macedonias as the name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.19.50 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/macedonia-is-officially-renamed-north-macedonia/2019/02/12/dfc82652-2ef7-11e9-8781-763619f12cb4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.92c9b085a297 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.194.114 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Move Announcement of the Government of the Republic of North Macedonia[1] for entry into force of the Final Agreement, Constitutional Amendments and Constitutional Law for Implementation of Amendments
We hereby announce that as of today, February 12th 2019, the Final Agreement for Resolving the Differences as Described in United Nations Security Resolutions 817 (1993) and 845 (1993), the Termination of the Interim Accord of 1995, and the Establishment of a Strategic Partnership Between the Parties enters into force and this was duly published in the Official Gazette by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Furthermore, we also inform that the conditions for entry into force of amendments XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV and XXXVI of the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia and the Constitutional Law for implementation of the Amendments XXXIII to XXXVI of the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia which the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia adopted on January 11th 2019 are met. These shall enter into force today, on February 12th 2019 together with the duly publication made by the Government in the Official Gazette.
Therewith begins the fulfillment of the obligations arising from the Final Agreement and constitutional amendments. The initial decisions in relation to the necessary measures and activities for fulfillment of the above-mentioned obligations shall be presented in a Communique published by the Inter-Ministerial Working Group for fulfillment of the obligations stipulated in the Final Agreement. Maleizmene (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move The Government of the Republic of North Macedonia has announced that the agreement entered into force as of 12 February 2019. --StanProg (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment What will happened if after obtaining a full membership in NATO, when all 29 Parliaments ratify Prespa Agreement in all member-states of NATO, one contractor, say Republic of North Macedonia decides to terminate the Prespa Agreement? Will than new country be expelled from NATO? What will happened in UN, again FYROM? 109.93.112.195 (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Prespa Agreement is now part of Constitution, any such move would require Constitutional amendment and I reckon in that case it would constitute expulsion from NATO. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change of country's name

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You may have redirected the old page Macedonia to North Macedonia, but the country's official name should be changed through the whole text. The title may be North Macedonia, but it is mentioned as Macedonia throughout the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.30.189 (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The article has only just been moved so I am sure the text will be updated very soon — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I propose to change where it reads "as a result of an ongoing dispute with Greece over the use of the name Macedonia" to "as a result of a dispute with Greece over the use of the name Macedonia" since the dispute is now settled, ratified and implemented. 131.180.19.236 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Country abbreviation is MK or MKD, not NMK

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

NMK is an informal bona fide solution for the vehicle plates of North Macedonia, the country code remains MK and MKD, so I suggest using it in the first sentence of the main article instead of NMK. Macedonicus (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Stick with iso code MK (which .mk came from) and MKD (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and ISO 3166-1 alpha-3), unless new reliable source claimed the abbreviation had officially changed to NMK . Matthew hk (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add this link "https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/25/its-time-for-macedonia-to-accept-compromise/" as a citation for the end of the first paragraph of section 4.5. This link verifies the claims made. Avieagle (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done but it is likely that this source isn't enough and that more sources may be needed. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in Albanian name of the Republic of North Macedonia

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Official long name is "Republika e Maqedonisë së Veriut". VeriUt, not VeriOt. Short name is "Maqedonia e Veriut"

  Not done. Do you have any sources proving this? Editors say that is how the official website spells it. [[17]]. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

They are right. A simple check on the Albanian edition of the official government site has it down with U and not an O

https://vlada.mk/?ln=sq Weatherextremes (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dimitarmkd92 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 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. Matthew hk (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Demonyms

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I just added "North Macedonian" as a secondary demonym in the infobox, linking to Demographics of the Republic of Macedonia. This was a bold change, so if another editor feels strongly about it, they're obviously welcome to revert and discuss here. But I've observed this new demonym already coming into usage, while at the same time "Macedonian" is still used by some sources. Examples: Balkan Insight The Guardian Euronews New Europe Ekathimerini ABC News I think it's appropriate at this time to list both. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

For the reasons that I explained in my post at the section below, I feel that there should be a prior discussion on the introduction of the demonym "North Macedonians". I don't think that the addition is justified, since the sources that you cited use the term as an adjectival reference either to the State or to associated nouns, such as the "Constitution", the "Prime Minister", the "vehicles", and not as a demonym that per definition refers to people. Also I can't see how the term "North Macedonians" links to the "Demographics of Republic of Macedonia": it seems completely out of context and inconsistent, as well as a deviation from the current effort to reach a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia). --Argean (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Kudzu1 I totally disagree with the change made. The Prespa agreement does not include demonyms and ethnicity. If we expand on other topics other than those provided in this agreement then we will never find any consensus. The issue of demonyms has long been resolved here in wikipedia and there is no reason why we should reopen these topics again, especially without agreeing here. Let's focus once on the article's name and then move on to the other topics because there is confusion here in the Talk Page so it's difficult to follow the discussions. Bes-ARTTalk 21:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Whether the Prespa Agreement says we can use it is irrelevant really, Wikipedia operates according to what is commonly used in English. When the Interim Accord was in effect no one rushed to change the name of the article to "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" on account of what the agreement said; instead we used what people use commonly, and North Macedonian is starting to make its appearance in English. --Michail (blah) 18:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed the Prespa agreement is irrelevant. The introduction of the demonym "North Macedonians" is currently WP:OR because there are not enough reliable sources that indicate that the demonym "North Macedonians" is currently used as WP:COMMONNAME to refer to people that live in or come from the country being renamed to "North Macedonia". On the other hand the adjectival reference "North Macedonian" is indeed being used by various sources to refer to the state and associated nouns such as the "Constitution", the "Capital city", the "NATO membership", the "Parliament" or official organs including ranks, such as the the "Goverment", the "Prime Minister", the "Ministers". None of the above uses though constitutes an established use of the term as demonym, but obviously the possibility that such use will eventually be established in the future cannot be excluded (but we are not WP:CRYSTALBALL). --Argean (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Kudzu1, I totally agree with your change, and that's shouldn't be the second demonym, but the first and only. The demonym refers to the residents or nationals od one country and the only demonym who can describe all residents of the country North Macedonia is North Macedonian/s. Btw, the link for this demonym should go to the demographics of North Macedonia, that is and suggested to the many of the articles about the ethnic groups. Here is one example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelanders On the top writes: This article is about Icelanders as an ethnic group. For information about residents or nationals of Iceland, see Demographics of Iceland. Sashko1999 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be added as a secondary demonym to avoid confusion with state-related affairs. According to the Prespa Agreement, the nationality given is Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia so one could argue that 'North' is part of the nationality as well. Also, according to the agreement, everything state and institution-related such as parliament, assembly, national football team etc. should make use of 'North Macedonian' instead of Macedonian. On the other hand, demonym does not have to do necessarily with the nationality of an international agreement and I accept that. But consider the confusion that will be created if 'Macedonian' is used to describe the prime minister or a politician of North Macedonia that holds office. It is illogical for a 'Macedonian politician' to be the prime minister of NORTH Macedonia. Similarly, a South Korean politician is the prime minister of South Korea. In both instances, South Korean is definitely Korean and North Macedonian is Macedonian but without the geographical characterisation, it would be very vague and unclear as there is no country simply called Macedonia or Korea. People could also argue that there is no other state in the world named South Macedonia to make this differentiation necessary. But 'North' should not be used to make a distinction between North and South (as in the Korean example) but to make a person such as a politician/footballer/etc. to correspond to his/her respective country, in this instance North Macedonia. Summing up, I believe that both should be used depending on the occasion (e.g. Macedonian singer, North Macedonian politician). Therefore, I believe that adding it a secondary demonym is the best thing that can be done. andreasgrk 20:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://vlada.mk/node/16763?ln=en-gb
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia/Archive_25&oldid=1143723653"