Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Republic of Vardar

Is it really an invented name? What about Vardar Banovina then? Also I believe Vardar Republic was an official (unfruitful) proposition from the Greek side in the first round of talks. --   Avg    18:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it make a difference? This isn't an encyclopedia article about Macedonia. The only relvant point is, do these appellations come close to being serious contenders for general use by us in Wikipedia articles? No, of course they do not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it entirely without reason or precedent? Not as long as the river flows. But if someone were to call Belgium Sambria tomorrow, I would describe it as an invented name, despite the Department Sambre-et-Meuse. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Using "Macedonia" to refer to the country

When the meaning is unquestionably clear, is there a need to use "Republic of Macedonia"? I'm referring to things such as templates and lists mentioning only sovereign states - where "Republic of - " is assumed, just like "Kingdom of - ". BalkanFever 05:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is, as "even then, the first mention should normally be a link to Republic of Macedonia". See for example User:ChrisO's edit here. That would cover templates, where there is only one mention. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia does this though. BalkanFever 07:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "a link to Republic of Macedonia" means precisely that, i.e. "Republic of Macedonia", not "Macedonia". Otherwise the entire sentence is redundant, don't you think? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

But they're both links (to the same page), that's why there is confusion about what to use. BalkanFever 08:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're basically saying that the MoS says "you can use Macedonia if the meaning is unquestionably clear, but even then the country should initially be mentioned as Macedonia". How does that even make sense? I'd also like other editors' thoughts on this. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't, which is why the wording should be changed. There is an ambiguity in regards to "link to Republic of Macedonia". BalkanFever 08:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(after 6ec's. Heavens, what are you doing here?) Just a small note to both of you, let's not conduct this discussion as if it was an exercise in exegesis. MOSMAC is not Holy Writ, and we are not applying it as Law. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, my argument is that the spirit of the "law", regardless of the letter, is that "Republic of Macedonia" is the intended "first mention", being the "established" and unambiguous term. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified. This was always intended to mean use of Republic of Macedonia, linked to the article, as first reference. This was not intended to include templates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So then we go by unquestionable clarity - Macedonia. BalkanFever 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Templates

I must object to the recent edit regarding templates. Surely they, along with any other instances where the country is mentioned just the once, should use "Republic of Macedonia", Wikipedia's "established term". Promoting the use of plain "Macedonia" in templates will only serve to inflame tensions unnecessarily and undermine the actual Macedonia, which is a disambiguation page. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Republic itself, through its president's lips, argues that "Republic of" is enough of a disambiguation. It seems we are acting more pro-Macedonian(Slav) than the actual Macedonians(Slav). Also note MOS:DAB#Piping ("Do not pipe"), which by extension should apply here. Additionally, note that America is referred to as (obviously) "United States" in all North American navigational boxes where there's a disambiguation problem. The Republic of Ireland is stated in relevant templates simply as "Ireland", only because "the term Republic of Ireland is the description of the State but not its name."^[1] However, the self-identifying name of the state in question, apart from heavily disputed, and apart from its common use in English being reasonably questioned, is also the "Republic of Macedonia"^[2]. NikoSilver 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Templates exist only as parts of articles; they are not articles themselves. They should be treated accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Template namespace. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for allowing the deliberate avoidance of the "established term" in templates. The sentence pertaining to them should be deleted until there is. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But there always has been consensus that the MoS relates solely to article space. The very first line, which has been in the MoS since I created it on 11 May 2007, reads: "These guidelines deal with the naming of articles related to Macedonia." Nobody has disputed that, or even commented on it, since then. The recent edit regarding templates simply highlights the point made in that first line. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is true, it should be expanded to cover templates as well; they have no less potential for controversy and disruption. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and it should also include categories. It's essential that all three - articles, categories and templates - should be treated consistently. Having said that, we don't need to be obsessive about disambiguating the RoM at every possible occasion, which I think is the wider point Septentrionalis was making. For instance, in Template:Countries of Europe there's no possibility of confusing the region of Macedonia with the country of Macedonia, since there's no other European country by that name.

I think that in templates and categories, we should say that "Macedonia" can be used as a short form of "Republic of Macedonia", just as (e.g.) "Germany" is used as a short form of "Federal Republic of Germany". The present treatment of the RoM's name in templates is wholly inconsistent with how we treat other countries; we should be consistent here.

I've amended the guidelines to widen the scope to templates and categories, and I've added a line to cover templates. The bottom line is that the context of the template is key - we already permit the term "Macedonia" to be used to refer to the RoM where its meaning is unquestionably clear. There is still a need to disambiguate between the country and the Greek region (or the geographical region) if the template lists more than one of those. But in the case of something like Template:Countries of Europe there's no reason to disambiguate, since there's no other country called Macedonia. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people should be encouraged to use plain "Macedonia". The reality is that it is far too controversial to be left untouched by Greek editors. And what does "may be used" mean? That "Republic of Macedonia" may not? There is simply no need to open such a can of worms. We don't need to be "obsessive" about avoiding disambiguation, either. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is obviously clear what it refers to. Nationalist Greek editors would argue that people shouldn't be "encouraged" to use Republic of Macedonia either. We've been over the apparent offence many times. Emotional users can be reverted. BalkanFever 10:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

But on what grounds would one be reverted for using "Republic of Macedonia"? Since when is the "established term", which also happens to be the actual article location, taboo? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If Template:Regions of Greece has "Macedonia" on the basis of unquestionable clarity, so too can Template:Countries of Europe. BalkanFever 10:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. What's wrong with "RoM"? That is the self-identifying term, after all, не? By the way, the self-identifying term for Macedonia is simply Macedonia, not "the Greek region of Macedonia" or "Aegean Macedonia" or whatever else. There is a slight but significant difference between it and the country. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ναι, it is. But it is redundant when we list countries. BalkanFever 10:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the self-identifying term for Greece? BalkanFever 10:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Hellenic Republic", but everyone uses the short form Greece (equivalent of "Hellas") instead - which is precisely the point I was making below. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's a short form and a long form of equivalent meaning - as in the case of Germany vs Federal Republic of Germany - then the short form is nearly always used. Bear in mind that "Republic of" is merely an adjective describing the country's system of government - it's not a geographical name. As a general rule in English, we use a geographical name as shorthand for the state constituted on that territory (Canada for Dominion of Canada, North Korea for Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, and so on). There's only a need to disambiguate if there's potential confusion between two entities of equivalent status (e.g. China vs People's Republic of China vs Republic of China). -- ChrisO (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So then we go by unquestionable clarity - Macedonia. BalkanFever 10:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the clarity issue is absolutely crucial here. As you rightly point out, it's perfectly reasonable for Template:Regions of Greece to use "Macedonia" undisambiguated, as there's no other region of Greece by that name. Applying the same principle, it's equally reasonable to use "Macedonia" undisambiguated on Template:Countries of Europe, as there's no other country by that name. But if more than one Macedonia is listed, then disambiguation would be needed. Context is key. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is precisely the reason Greece could never accept "Republic of" as being "enough" disambiguation; people would always be trying to reduce it to plain "Macedonia". Thanks for proving why it could never work. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Which leaves "Macedonia" as only being able to refer to the Greek region. That is precisely the reason I disagree with Greece's "compromise" proposals. They don't care for the actual region of Macedonia and "Skopje's monopolisation", they care for the nationalistic bullshit of "Macedonia is Greek". The fact that "Macedonia" is the self-identifying term of the Greek region proves that they are trying to monopolise the name. BalkanFever 11:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The crucial difference being that Macedonia's name is not a matter of international dispute, nor was it ever an obstacle to its membership of international organisations. If "Macedonia" were a mere region of the Republic - which is what it actually is, in my opinion - alongside, say, Paionia and Dardania, I'm sure Greece would take no issue. It only became an issue when the Republic sought independence as the state representing (all) Macedonia and Macedonians, at least until the irredentist articles in the constitution were amended due to pressure from Athens. And why is "Macedonia is Greek" nationalistic bullshit? Macedonia, at least according to the Greek understanding of the term, is Greek. The slogan was a perfectly legitimate reaction to this, in my opinion. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So essentially, it is only confusing to Greeks. Ego problems made them take it up with the country - "You may not use the name Macedonia" and then pressuring other countries to not use the name Macedonia. The fact that realpolitik dictates the Greek government cannot be as big assholes now that they were then does not change the reality. The position of Greece has always been for their Macedonia to be the real Macedonia. There is no international dispute - there is only Greece playing crybaby. And don't forget Paionia and Dardania have not been used since antiquity. They have only one meaning. Macedonia, however, even without the Greek region and the Republic, still has other meanings. BalkanFever 11:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If this is what you mean by irredentism, somebody seriously overestimated the Greek government's reading comprehension abilities. BalkanFever 11:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, "Macedonia is Greek" is actually the reaction to this, which is why it is nationalistic bullshit. BalkanFever —Preceding comment was added at 12:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, "Macedonia is Greek" does not mean Greece wants to annex the poorest republic of the former Yugoslavia, as in the Greek view it simply isn't Macedonia. None of the above changes the fact the country will have to change its name in order to get where it wants, so adopting a more constructive attitude is in its own best interests. If it were not an international dispute there would be no provisional reference used by international organisations, and no UN mediation. I know you dislike it, but that's the reality you face I'm afraid. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But until the country changes it's name (if ever), the reality is when someone sees a country called Macedonia, they know what it means. And you know what it means, it's just you can't deal with it. BalkanFever 09:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We've been dealing with it since 1991 without too much grief, actually. We're not as obsessed with the issue as you think, but if we are able to use our position to change something we dislike, why the fuck not? You'd do the same. The question is how long will you be able to deal with remaining outside the EU when every other country around you has joined? The stakes are far higher on your side of the fence, that's for sure. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, please everybody stop discussing your real-life national feuds and restrict yourselves to discussing Wikipedia issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And in Wikipedia, everybody knows what "Macedonia" means when it refers to a country. BalkanFever 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, the needle's stuck again. FP's right though, we should stick to the essence. Why am I being reverted for simply stating the obvious, namely that we have a dispute regarding templates? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re your last revert, have you even read the sentence? It is about templates, not bloody articles. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here? Kekrops gets banned and BalkanFever is left alone reverting and claiming we have consensus on something we are currently debating?--   Avg    13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Pro and con

Let's break this discussion down into something more manageable. What are the arguments pro and con this modification of the guideline? Feel free to add further summary arguments below. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pro

• Standard practice for countries is to use a geographical name (e.g. Germany) as a short form of a longer formal name (Federal Republic of Germany).
• The use of a formal name for the RoM in templates is inconsistent with our descriptions of almost every other country.
• The length of templates is increased unnecessarily by using the long name.
• On country-level templates there is no possibility of confusing the country called Macedonia with any other country, as it's the only one using that name.
• Templates can be protected without a significant possibility of valuable contributions being sacrificed (as opposed to articles).

Con

• Greek editors would think it was provocative and would revert it.
• The article is at Republic of Macedonia, not Macedonia.
• "Republic of Macedonia" is endorsed as the preferred term in article space.
• There is no formal name acknowledged by the international community.
• Monopolisation of the name Macedonia by the country.

---

• And seriously I would revert it until I would get banned, no way in hell would I compromise in that.--   Avg    12:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't even accept the current compromise [3].BalkanFever 12:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Since when "Macedonia" piping to "RoM" has been a compromise here? You wish. --   Avg    12:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why didn't you just revert, instead of adding "FYR"? Don't worry, that's a rhetorical question. I know you're POV pushing. BalkanFever 12:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're advocating at this very discussion for Macedonia to be used a a reference to your country and you accuse me for POV-pushing. We have a proverb in Greece "The donkey called the rooster big-headed", which is similar to "The pot calling the kettle black".--   Avg    12:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet if the donkey told the rooster "that name offends me, change it!" that would be OK. BalkanFever 12:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'm doing is trying to explain to you (even though it is fruitless) that there is only one country called Macedonia. If you can't handle the truth because it hurts your feelings, nobody cares. BalkanFever 12:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the similarity would be that the donkey would decide one day to call itself a rooster. Oh and about your other comment, unfortunately many people care and would never let you and your peers make Wikipedia your nationalist playground. Sorry.--   Avg    12:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The rooster (the Republic of Macedonia - I disambiguate when needed, not when I don't need to) has been a rooster all along. The donkey is just annoyed for no reason. It's also very obstinate. BalkanFever 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In this proverb the rooster is Greece and the donkey is fYRoM. Never mind. Here's a list of Greek proverbs for your perusal [4]. In fact it's funny how many of them apply in this case. --   Avg    13:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would give you a list of proverbs from you know where but they will all offend you. Not because of your ethnic background, but because of your emotional strength. BalkanFever 13:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, come on now, this is crossing the line into not-so-nice territory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. BalkanFever 13:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What was that about [5]? You now dictate the other side's arguments AND insult them as well? It's back.--   Avg    13:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! You found my contribution which I worked so hard to cover up with that distracting edit summary! What shall I do? Please. BalkanFever 14:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Avg, announcing that you intend to win a dispute by revert-warring until you get banned is not a very clever idea. This could happen quicker than you'd think, these days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I know very well what I say and I said that if a non-encyclopaedic opinion prevails here I'll keep reverting it to eternity. Oh and I take that as a threat Fut.Perf. You are also bounded by the ArbCom as you well remember and you've proven many times you're not objective.--   Avg    13:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't do bans myself on these issues. I just said, I know such bans happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, for Fut Perf to actually do the bans himself would be ill-advised. He just gets me to do what needs to be done. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds a bit too cabalistic, don't you think? BalkanFever 13:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. It's realistic. If people edit-war over this one, as Avg has threatened, I'll be on hand to shove WP:ARBMAC down the appropriate throats. It would be appropriate to do so: this is just an extension of the long-standing fights on Macedonia (terminology). Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you why I feel strongly about it. The template name has changed without any compromise. Since users who try to revert, even if the previous edits are completely arbitrary and unjustified, are put into revert paroles and can't really act on that (e.g. Kekrops who was reduced to just state his opposition on the talk page), ChrisO and BalkanFever are working towards a new de-facto situation. I can see where this is going.--   Avg    13:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that ChrisO is not from the Balkans, and I contribute completely independently from him. Also note that we have had many neutral editors contributing to Macedonia-related articles, and they pretty much all tend to disagree with the Greek editors. Of course they could all be on the oh-so enticing "FYROM payroll" (which I hear consists of freshly printed White Tower of Thessaloniki bills), or the alternative.....BalkanFever 14:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you collaborate, but you are working towards a common goal, which is to push fYRoM POV, knowingly for you, unknownigly for ChrisO. ChrisO (and Fut.Perf. in a level) has an ill-conceived notion of protecting the minorities in Wikipedia against their perceived abuse from majorities. In order to cancel the arithmetic advantage they take sides. --   Avg    14:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So ChrisO, an admin since 2004 has no clue what he's doing and pushing "fYRoM POV", which, if you think about it, is an oxymoron. Whatever makes you happy. Again, the other alternative is they want to rid the encyclopaedia of nationalist propaganda, but this can't be, because the Hellenes are always right, and everyone else is just jealous. BalkanFever 14:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, it's no secret that Moreschi and I have been closely collaborating in this field, and that he's taken action in a number of cases that I brought to his attention. However, I fully recognise that in this particular area of dispute I speak totally as an involved editor and not as an admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I assumed that to be obvious from the start. BalkanFever 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well and I'm happy that all this is on the record now.--   Avg    13:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Speaking of getting things on the record, I'd like to disabuse Avg of this notion that I'm trying to "protect the minorities in Wikipedia against their perceived abuse from majorities" or taking sides. That's not remotely accurate. I devised Wikipedia:Naming conflict a long time ago as a way of avoiding taking sides on disputes such as the infamous Gdanzig case. The most important section in WP:NCON sums it up: "Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is."

Quite simply, it's not our job as Wikipedia editors to decide that a particular term is right or wrong for political reasons. The arguments I'm reading above about how the terminology is "far too controversial to be left untouched by Greek editors" (by which Kekrops means Greek editors will want to remove it because they have a political disagreement with it) is as clear a violation of NPOV as you're likely to get. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." That in itself isn't a reason to remove such content. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The text essentially read (what to use for the country), where there is no ambiguity, WP has disagreement over what to use. I changed it to say that Macedonia is ok. Jd2718 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No the text reads that the templates will be modified from RoM to plain Macedonia. This is a huge step. Soon all templates for the country will be changed to "Macedonia" because "there is no dab". I'm sorry you can't see this, but I can.--   Avg    13:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand your political objections to it, but I'm afraid Wikipedia simply doesn't operate on that basis. If you look at other debated content elsewhere on Wikipedia, you'll see what I mean. The inclusion of historical depictions of Muhammad is a case in point - many of the points raised on the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ are relevant here too.

The bottom line is that there is of course no objection to disambiguation where it's necessary; but disambiguating to meet a particular political POV is in itself a violation of NPOV. Bear in mind that in using "Macedonia" as shorthand for the RoM (or for that matter FYROM), we're merely following common conventions for place naming. (Someone raised the counter-example of Czech Republic earlier, but the reason why it's a unique exception in Europe is that the name "Czech" was never latinised or anglicised - there was no "Czechia", though of course there's a Slovakia.) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that an encyclopaedia simply describes and doesn't prescribe. This is something you've put in the guideline and I'm not at all sure it has such a wide consensus as you claim it to be. You seem to fail to understand the power an encyclopaedia has. An encyclopaedia prescribes simply by being there. Just by having a term sitting on the Wikipedia pages, this propagates to the millions of readers of this encyclopaedia, creates a resonance effect and becomes even more mainstream, having even more google hits, scientific references etc. And then, you (or people thinking like you), come and say, well "Macedonia" is the prevalent term, we're not even considering using any other term because here in Wikipedia we "describe". Well you describe something you have prescribed! Do not underestimate the power of Wikipedia, one of the top-10 sites on the web! And this is why this debate is so important to all sides. Both sides (RoM and Greece) very well know how important is for a mainstream encyclopaedia to propagate the correct term to the public. This is what third parties can't grasp and consider this a "ridiculous" debate.

Just as a side reference, in Greece the country is called Czechia :-) --   Avg    01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "Macedonia" is used by people in the real world when there is no way of getting it confused with anything else. Example: "What countires have you been to?" "I've been to Germany, Latvia, Macedonia...". We are only talking about when it is clear what it means, not when another "Macedonia" is mentioned. It's funny that you mention the power of Wikipedia, because you have proven time and time again that you want everyone to call it "FYROM". BalkanFever 01:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The dab issue is the pretext of this discussion for both of us. I don't want to play games, there is a huge issue with the name "Macedonia". My only proposal to avoid such fruitless discussions would be that NOBODY uses the term Macedonia alone. NEVER. Not you for the country, not us for the province. Do you accept that? And yes, of course I'd like everyone to call the country "FYROM", this is exactly why I mention the power of Wikipedia (obviously!). It currently doesn't happen, so my view is that Wikipedia PRESCRIBES a view which is not objective. --   Avg    01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does happen, very frequently. I was looking at guidebooks the other day to see what terminology they use, and they all (Rough Guide, Lonely Planet, Bradt) do use "Macedonia" for both the country and the Greek province. Indeed, the Bradt guide is actually called simply "Macedonia". If you look at other encyclopedic sources, e.g. the BBC's country guide, you'll see that they also commonly use "Macedonia" to refer to the country (incidentally, the BBC seems to have had an editorial change of heart - it used to use FYROM until about six months ago). Looking at Google News, the vast majority of media sources (by a ration of about 9 to 1) appear to use "Macedonia" by itself. [6] So there's nothing unusual about using this terminology - in fact, our reliance on the longer name seems to be out of line with current common practice. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

Why do we use two columns in this article? It makes it unnecessarily hard to read... -- ChrisO (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's for juxtaposition more than anything. BalkanFever 10:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems to be resolution-dependent. I'm reading this on an 800x480 screen and it's very hard to read with the columnar layout. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to make it resolution friendly? If there isn't I guess your stuck with it ;). BalkanFever 10:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any real benefit to it. The resolution is ok for me, but it is harder to read than it should be. Jd2718 (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm minded to change it to single-column layout for ease of use. Does anyone have any objection to this? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my idea, but there are two reasons to have double columns (the note on Ancient Macedonian can just as well be a paragraph on its own).

• It ensures a parallel structure, thus making sure that we cover the same points for both values of Macedonia.
• I predict that if we don't, we will see squabbles about who gets to go first. I regret to say I'm not making this up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL :( Would it just be possible to make it thinner (at the expense of reading fewer words per line)? - Francis Tyers · 12:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the consensus?

ChrisO has started modifying the templates. Where is the consensus? Has any poll taken place? Any further input from third parties? What triggered this, given the very vocal opposition of several people?--   Avg    00:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Which specific modification are you referring to? The summary I just added is a quick summation of the lengthy text below. Feel free to modify it if you feel I've summarised it incorrectly. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on re Chris, you know I'm referring to the addition of the templates thingy [7] (I've only found the diff for Greece and couldn't find quickly the respective RoM diff, but the point is do we have consensus for that?)--   Avg    00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry - it's late and I'm tired. :-) Rather than just retyping a load of stuff, let me just point you to my comments at Template talk:Countries of Europe#"Republic of" again. Re the "vocal opposition", I recognise that some editors have political objections to this nomenclature but I'm afraid that's not something we can act on. If you have a policy-based objection, let's hear it. And re the Greek diff you highlighted, that merely mirrors the position for templates relating to the RoM - I noticed an imbalance there and fixed it (which I would have thought you'd approve of...) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So should one start editing the templates? BalkanFever 00:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I found there wasn't actually much need to do so - a great many of them already use the [[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia]] convention, which was somewhat unexpected. Template:Countries of Europe and Template:MKD were the only significant ones I found (so far, anyway) that needed changing. Are there any others? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out, but you'll probably find them before me. BalkanFever 00:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Is the proposal that "Republic of Macedonia" be banned from templates? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No. If the template mentions the Greek region, like the national anthems template, then we use "Republic of Macedonia". BalkanFever 11:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant templates linking only to country articles. Come to think of it, are there any that link to both FYROM and Macedonia? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly why your opposition was useless - it is unquestionably clear what is being referred to. BalkanFever 11:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Save your insults, please. It is a valid question; if "Macedonia" may be used, does that mean "RoM" may not? And let someone else have a go at answering this. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was an insult. Whatever you say. Are you tired of me rebutting your arguments? If you are, I think Uncyclopedia is looking for members. Have funBalkanFever 11:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Απαξιώ. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? Here? We can't even agree on what the current language means. Is there any hope that such discussions as this will ever lead to consensus? Should we scrap this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not - the alternative is anarchy, which doesn't benefit anyone. And in reply to Kekrops' query on Fut. Perf's user talk page, there's certainly no intention of banning the term "Republic of Macedonia" (or for that matter "Greek Macedonia" and its equivalents) from templates. The short form for the name of a region or country is the norm when there's no likelihood of it being confused with another entity, but the long form is still appropriate if both regions and countries are being linked in a template. Fut. Perf. has provided a good example of this in Template:Albanians, where both countries and regions are being linked. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're refuting BalkanFever's argument that "Macedonia" may and should be used as long as "no other Macedonia is mentioned". ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really disagreeing, it's more a matter of there needing to be no likelihood of confusion with another Macedonia. If you have a template that links only countries, there's no other country called Macedonia. Likewise if it links only Greek regions, there's no other Greek region of that name. But where countries and regions are being linked, as in Template:Albanians, then it seems reasonable to use the long form to avoid possible confusion - in that particular case, "Macedonia" could mean the country, the Greek region or the geographical region, given the context. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to make the edit summary as clear as possible - obviously it didn't work. I could have just said "per WP:MOSMAC" but that leaves something to be desired. BalkanFever 10:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We are all assuming that the reader of the template knows that there are currently (mainly) four Macedonias, and selects the right meaning depending on the context of the template. But this is not true. What if people who know only of this Macedonia, presume that it split from Greece and became a new separate autonomous entity? I say we always disambiguate both. We can't find the golden section in a real life problem ourselves. And we needn't split hairs every time and argue what is and what is not "unquestionably clear". It would be "unquestionable" if the majority of the readers knew all this, and I doubt if 1% does. NikoSilver 13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty academic. There can't be many readers who know the Greek one but not the Skopje one, rather than the other way round. Independent countries are generally better known that subnational entities. Practical proof of this is the often documented practice by foreign media, where they are not fettered by political correctness, of using simply "M" for the country. They wouldn't be doing that if they knew their readers would be liable to misunderstand them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Independent countries are generally better known than subnational entities = de facto monopolisation of the name by the country. Not something we should be promoting, especially when it can be easily avoided by simply using the actual article location, which by the way isn't simply Macedonia for some strange reason. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew I should use the opposite example in anticipation of Fut's response. So here goes: What if people who know only of this Macedonia, presume that it united with Greece when they see the e.g. "Regions of Greece" template? :-) NikoSilver 13:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not intended for those both ignorant and clueless; they have a Simple English WP to lead them by the hand. Others will click on a link before assuming large political consequences from a mention on a template.

The same logic would forbid us from using Ionian Islands in the same template without explaining that this does not mean Chios, which was Ionian and is an island. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In Greek, however, there's a subtle difference between Ιώνια and Ιόνια. Plus it's the Heptanese, officially. Plus nobody would care. As for "ignorants", well, I certainly didn't know the official appellation of Taiwan when I first signed in WP, and I don't consider myself an "ignorant" for not knowing something 5000 miles away from where I live. Go ask around how many people know this. NikoSilver 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with ignorance; we exist to fill it with knowledge. It's the combination with cluelessness that's destructive.

We cannot fail-safe against all possible leaps to all possible conclusions. (And I'm further from Taiwan than you are.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? So when did you find out first that Taiwan was China? Before that? You were not only ignorant but also clueless like me? And now that we all know here we are supposed to be omniscient and we also constitute the extreme majority? NikoSilver 22:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(left) Who ever said you were clueless< Niko? The clueless one is your hypothetical reader who deduces, from {{Regions of Greece}} alone, without even clicking on the link, that Greece has absorbed the Republic.

• I certainly knew Taiwan was China before 1972; of course, it was a lot more prominent as a Permanent Member of the Security Council. But Future and I answer not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy who saved us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) All irrelevant. The only important point is: If a reader sees "M." in the context of a list of countries, they will either connect that to the right colored spot on the map. Or they won't be able to connect it to anything at all (in which case there's not much we can do for them). The danger that they will mistakenly connect it to the other colored spot on the map is vanishingly small. That's all. Whether they know about the existence of that other spot, or care about it, or should care about it, or whether this usage might in some way affect what they think about it, is totally besides the point. It is simply not an issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I knew both Taiwan and China existed when I first signed in. No idea about how they were called and why. That's far from vanishingly small. NikoSilver 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You've lost me there. In what way does that affect my argument? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the way that your argument is based that people will either know both Chinas/Macedonias or none. That doesn't make any difference, because they can know 1)Northern Greece and Macedonia (country), 2)Macedonia, Greece and FYROM, 3)Norther Greece and FYROM, 4)Macedonia, Greece and Macedonia (country). For those who know something, your argument holds water only for the latter. As I said, I knew both Chinas, and one of them I knew with the wrong self-id name. See? NikoSilver 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine anybody (outside Greece, perhaps) who'd be familiar with the term FYROM and not also know that that entity is also called Macedonia. How else would they have learned that absurdly opaque acronym FYROM in the first place, if they didn't know what the last letter stood for? FYROM is not a term that you ever meet much in everyday life, outside Greece, in my experience. So, of the four groups you described, (2) and (3) are pretty much empty, and my scenario would work without problem for (1) and (4). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cite the "emptyness" for groups 2 and 3; I've cited why it is not empty millions of times. I also disagree with your scenario working for (1). How will it work for 1 if the template is for provinces of Greece? NikoSilver 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from my disagreement with the "emptyness", and aside from my disagreement with your scenario working with (1), we forgot to add 5)Northern Greece and Yugoslavia, 6)Macedonia, Greece and Yugoslavia, 7)Northern Greece and nothing, 8)Nothing and Macedonia (country). Your argument would work interchangeably only depending on the template's content. NikoSilver 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not citing anything, this is a discussion about editorial common sense, not about sourceable article content. How exactly do you believe you have "cited" ("millions of times") how (2) and (3) are not empty? Have you ever come across a person (outside Greece) who knew the term FYROM but didn't know "M" stood for Macedonia? I sure haven't. The idea seems mindboggling. As for the reverse problem with (1), that's not the problem we are talking about. For lists of provinces of Greece, we can't reasonably do much else than what we presumably do now (i.e. [[Macedonia (Greece)|Macedonia]]. It's perfectly reasonable to do, even at the (remote) risk that the odd reader of group (1) might be momentarily a bit confused. That's really the worst that can happen. In fact, all I'm suggesting now is that we might just as well do the same the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already "the same way round", we don't call it FYROM in those templates. "Republic of Macedonia" is what the country calls itself. How would you call Greece's Macedonia to help disambiguate? Call it "region of Macedonia" if you want. Plus we're talking about only ONE template (Template:Regions of Greece) vs a zillion others with countries of whatever. The other suspect, (Template:Peripheries of Greece) already has modifiers for clarity (West, Central, Eastern). NikoSilver 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What are you reading into me again? I said very clearly I find it perfectly sensible to not disambiguate Greek Macedonia in a Greek-regions-only template at all. Because the danger of misunderstanding is minute. By the same logic, I'd find it perfectly defensible to not disambiguate the country in a countries-only template. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What part confuses you? I'm saying that if you want to dab MkGr in its template in return, then go ahead and do it. I don't find dab-ing MkGr objectionable, even if it's a pleonasm for some. It won't be for others, and it doesn't (and shouldn't) hurt anyone's feelings. Same for the Republic (apparently -see penultimate post below). NikoSilver 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But of course I don't want to dab MkGr in its template. Because I'm an aesthete, as Kekrops would say. Unlike some, I perceive of these decisions not as a political power game of annoying or satisfying political sensitivities, but as a service of giving our readers the most efficient, elegant wording possible. All disambiguating additions should be kept to the necessary minimum. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, fellow aesthete, I guess we define necessity differently. Political sensitivities are irrelevant when it comes to a reader thinking that the largest region of Greece broke away, or that an independent country merged to Greece. Especially if there's no need to, and if there's no offense involved. Finally, I find the separation of Template space vs Article space very technical and very wiki-legalese. I'd be terribly embarrassed to bring it up as an argument in the first place. We named that article like that for a reason. The same reason applies to templates and younameit. If you want, I can live with "the first mentioning always being Republic of Macedonia, and every consequent one simply Macedonia". (hehe) NikoSilver 00:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is an issue, clearly, in the real world. It's just that here, the ἐλέῳ Θεοῦ powers that be have decided that it shouldn't be. And if we don't like it, we can piss off, I know. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, neutrality should not be feigned. The decision to deny it as an issue is entirely arbitrary and political. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Only in the sense that the adoption of WP:NPOV is a political decision in the first place, which of course it was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not an issue of being politically neutral with respect to the real life issue. It's an issue of principle with respect to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia naming practices are descriptive, not prescriptive. You've heard it a million times, but you apparently still don't understand what that means. It means exactly this: we don't care about what our reader thinks about that other coloured spot on the map. We only care about whether they can find the right one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But this has extended beyond what you're saying. In the beginning, we were told that "Republic of Macedonia" was the only acceptable article location as that was the self-identifying term and it would be NPOV to dispute it. Now we're told that even that is not good enough, and that it has to be plain "Macedonia" and you Greeks can go jump for all we care. In light of such arbitrariness and inconsistency, I'm sorry if you cannot understand that it has become difficult to assume good faith. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What's so difficult? It's a matter of disambiguation. Bleh, we've discussed that a billion times too. Where real disambiguation needs (picking the right spot on the map rather than the other one) are a realistic issue, "Republic of..." is a useful disambiguator. Where that's not an issue, simplicity prevails. Weren't you the one who declared an aesthete the other day and wanted to fix texts for more elegance? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• The province is called Macedonia too, also for simplicity. And Balkan Fever may want to move Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia, but I don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It now seems that "disambiguation" has a higher priority than NPOV. It doesn't matter if a term is POV, as long as it's clear to the reader what it refers to. Let's see what the next invention will be...--   Avg    18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Where self-identifying names are concerned, that has indeed been always the explicit policy. You are beginning to grasp something. At last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Fut.Perf. please re-read what you've just said and if you're happy with this state of affairs in Wikipedia then I really should lose any small hope I still have that we might reach the light at the end of the tunnel.--   Avg    22:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am fine with "Republic of Macedonia". I never said I wasn't. But 1) common sense dicatates that it should be called "Macedonia" when there is no need for disambiguation (for both places), and 2) The "monopolisation" thing is a load of bull. We can go two ways here: simplicity and common sense, or the one where random users change the consensus on templates because it's obvious. BalkanFever 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with Macedonia, Greece or whatever makes it different. The monopolization thing was viewed the other way round yesterday in Talk:Thessaloniki... I was one of those who helped avoid it (for MYkedonia :-)). I'd do it again, but I'd demand the same from the "unquestionable" other. And I still think that we are too busy to start arguing in every freakin' talkpage if the meaning is "unquestionably clear" and for whom. We need universal simple rules. Not exceptions of the exception. NikoSilver 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Most "Republicans" (bless you, Anderson, I thought you were talking about this kind the first time round) were more than happy with the status quo ante - why wouldn't they be? - but the cabal decided it had to be plus royaliste que le roi. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not intend to discuss the current politics of the United States on Wikipedia. Until at least November next they will be a worse snake pit than this one.

I have been using Republican and Provincial on this page, consistently, to designate the two kinds of Macedonian; that even Kekrops finds this unclear is a bad sign for the policy he advocates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I found it unclear until I figured out what you were talking about, as it was the first time I had seen the word used in that context. I'm sure many others fell into the same trap, or maybe I'm just a natural blonde. It's not exactly common usage, but I think it's a great idea all the same. Be careful, though; if the Republicans are "offended" so easily by the name of their own capital city, imagine how they'll feel about being named after their form of government. Expect a stern warning on the use of "pejorative epithets" from User:ChrisO. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Economist discovers WP:MOSMAC

Amazingly, someone is actually reading this guideline. ;-) From this week's issue of The Economist:

"Debates about the merits of articles often drag on for weeks, draining energy and taking up far more space than the entries themselves. Such deliberations involve volleys of arcane internal acronyms and references to obscure policies and guidelines, such as WP:APT ("Avoid Peacock Terms"—terms that merely promote the subject, without giving real information) and WP:MOSMAC (a set of guidelines for "Wikipedia articles discussing the Republic of Macedonia and the Province of Macedonia, Greece")." [8]

Weeks? They understate it - looking at this page's history, we started discussing it all the way back in May 2007... -- ChrisO (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL. BalkanFever 02:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And in answer to your question "Are you famous now?", the answer is... sort of. Take a look at this Economist article from last year: "This correspondent’s modest Wikipedia entry was edited this week by an anonymous contributor who posted a series of entertaining but defamatory remarks; a mere four minutes later, another user had removed them." The remover was me. I have a pretty good idea who wrote the latest article, too. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What would be funny is the thought of Matthew Nimetz stumbling upon this :-) BalkanFever 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think he hasn't? ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he would have told us more about himself. BalkanFever 03:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The poor fellow obviously has a severe conflict of interest problem. Let's help him out and fix that red link. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he can't write about himself in the third person from a neutral point of view then that's a problem for him. But yes, let's help him out. I'll let you start the article if you want - unless of course you are Matthew Nimetz ;-D BalkanFever 04:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"You are Lobby Lud Matthew Nimetz and I claim my five pounds?" I deny everything! Seriously though, I'm off to bed now, so if you want to start the article, please feel free to do so. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I really can't find much info about him. I'll keep looking, but for now I'll make a subpage where anyone interested can add sources: User:BalkanFever/Matthew Nimetz. BalkanFever 04:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How do we know he doesn't edit here? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We really don't. Maybe I'm him. Maybe you're him. Maybe it's Fut. Perf. (not sure, but Nimetz does sound a bit German). It doesn't really matter though, but we should have an article on him. BalkanFever 05:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I swear I'm not! ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The search continues....BalkanFever 05:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just stumbled upon this. LOL, just today I spotted that annoying red link in Macedonia naming dispute and clicked it! (Shhh, don't tell them I'm him, they'll delete my article on the grounds of WP:COI) NikoSilver 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, BF, your subpage is much more informative. Please transfer the content there, and sorry for creating it before you. If I had read this section I'd have contributed in your subpage. NikoSilver 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I will do that now. BTW, I got the idea of creating a subpage then moving it to the mainspace from you ;-). BalkanFever 11:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, I've added a lot more info. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia question: Where does the name Nimetz hail from? Anyone got any idea? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My speculation is that it is German, but I actually have no clue. BalkanFever 13:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's German, but ironically it actually has Slavic roots - it's derived from the West Slavic term for "German" (e.g. Polish niemcy). I'd guess Nimetz has Pomeranian or Prussian ancestry. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, the Slavic (not only West Slavic) root for German is derived from mute, and the root for Slav is derived from speech :) --Cameltrader (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG, ethnic stereotypes! Who would have imagined it? ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, not really, because the Germans were mute, in the sense that they could not understand, or utter anything comprehensible to, the Slavs. More of an observation than a stereotype. But I heard it was folk etymology anyway. BalkanFever 11:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Misleading summary (Greece-related articles again)

The actual agreement that was reached last autumn, and which describes actual practice out there (as a guideline text should), is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles)/Archive 2#Attempt to find common ground. The consensus was, very clearly, very explicitly, that there is no consensus, and that's what the body of the guideline text correctly describes. There is an agreement that status quo should remain stable; there most emphatically is no consensus that that status quo currently predominant in most Greece articles (using "fY...") should be mandated as obligatory for new content. The summary introduced in February does not do justice to the agreement reached on that point, and I will insist on changing it accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In this link I can only see you objecting to the current status quo. So the only new development on this is that you haven't changed your mind from last year.--   Avg    16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The passage that was eventually adopted in the guideline text on the basis of that discussion was written by me, NikoSilver, Kekrops and Pmanderson, with ChrisO watching. That was the agreement. Also, the status quo of "agreement about no agreement, no fixed guideline" is undoubtedly also the factual status quo out in the wiki, as for instance our dialect map clearly shows (as it has stood unchallenged and with that legend for almost as long as that falsifying summary has been on this page.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fut. you can't just selectively apply the "factual status quo" because "undoubtedly" there is no consensus on how RoM should be named, right? This is double standards. either we follow the status quo, or we don't.--   Avg    17:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So which one is it? BalkanFever 08:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The text under WP:MOSMAC#Naming conventions (country):

There is currently no clearly defined consensus about how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about Greece. While some editors feel that naming conventions in this domain should be no different from those used elsewhere, other editors feel that in the interest of disambiguation, it may be useful to employ disambiguating qualifiers that make the contrast more salient than just "Republic of...". This goes especially for articles that also mention the Greek province of Macedonia. While the name used for the republic should still be Republic of Macedonia, additional qualification in the form of "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", "the Republic of Macedonia, once part of Yugoslavia", or some other phrasing of the same information, can be helpful in such instances. This, in general, needs to be done only once in an article. In articles where the political backgrounds are important, such as topics of bilateral political relations or 1990s history, a wikilink from "Yugoslav" or "former Yugoslav" to a relevant background article (e.g. Macedonia naming dispute, or Breakup of Yugoslavia) may also be useful. However, no exact guidelines for all cases have been agreed upon; when in doubt, it is recommended to leave the status quo in each article as is.

If we are going to also have a shortened "summary guideline", it needs to conform to this and not introduce more non-existent "conventions" through the back door. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no consensus on Greek-related articles, but I also recall the brutal imposition of "consensus" vis-à-vis the shortening of "Republic of Macedonia" to "Macedonia". There was in fact no such consensus there either. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What's been happening now? There is no consensus, and no hope of consensus, to use either FYROM or former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on all articles relating to Greece; I do not know of a single non-Greek editor who supports it, and some Greeks do not. Should we call this failure to reach consensus {{historic}} and return to WP:NCGN? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I say we just let it be because it makes our lives easier, and because we are anticipating shortly international developments on the issue that may make our lives easier anyway. NikoSilver 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Α ρε Νικολή... Ever the optimist. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I was born on a Saturday. ;-) (without even having an idea about Bucharest's veto, or the upcoming elections, or the new accession talks --check my timestamp). Scheffer says he agrees with me (lol), but I'd tweak to October now, given "the swims of the people". NikoSilver 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fix situation

There is situation: "In articles where there is a need to distinguish the Slavic??? ethnic group from the other ethnic groups inhabiting Macedonia". May I ask who is the Slavic ethnic group. There are no Slavs in any cansuses in any part of Macedonia and the Slavic ethnic group is fictional. In Wikipedia the ethnic Macedonians are not questioned. (Toci (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

So now the ethnic Macedonians are not even a Slavic ethnic group? Why not go further and actually ask Wikipedia to state the fact that they're the direct descendants of the Ancient Macedonians? --   Avg    17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Serbians in Macedonia are also Slavic speaking people (some% of the people) (can be inside the Slavic ethnic group) and Bosnians are as well. People might get confused on the issue. In this article the situation refers to ethnic Macedonians, not the etnic Serbs or Bosnians or the sum of all of them as Slavic speaking people (if you see the recomendation "Use "Macedonian Slavs" or "Slavic Macedonians" to distinguish them from the other ethnic groups in the region"). It is more precise to be Macedonian ethnic group. Slavic ethnic group is too general in this case. (Toci (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Toci has a point, "Slavic Macedonians" as opposed to "Serbian Macedonians" doesn't make much sense. BalkanFever 03:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Slav Macedonians or Macedonian Slavs is historically the most common term used for disambiguation in the literature. And it has always been used to mean "non-Serb and/or non-Bulgarian Slavs of Macedonia", even if the Serbs and Bulgarians and are also Slavs. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Slavic ethnic groups is meant to be used for ethnic Macedonians, but can be used for Serb, Bosnian and Bulgarian (Macedonians). Therefore the Slavic ethnic group should be changed into ethnic Macedonians to avoid that confusion. When there is Slavic ethnic group all the Slavic groups in Macedonia must be included (Serbs, Bosnians, Bulgarians and Macedonians). The ethnic Macedonians are only one of those groups, Slavic ethnic group in Macedonia does not mean exclusivelly ethnic Macedonian. I think this is clear enough. (Toci (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

OK, I've changed it to Slavic Macedonian, which also follows the actual wording prescribed in such cases. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is now manual for nothing with your edit. Situation: When you have Slavic Macedonians. Convention: Use Slavic Macedonians. No need to write same situation-convention. (Toci (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Are you now revert-warring about a lame naming issue on the very guideline page about how to deal with lame naming issues. That's the hight of lameness. Please stop, this is just too ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's something missing in the summary, how to refer to the ethnic group in cases of potential mix-up with the Greek group, e.g. Macedonian Australians, who may be either Ethnic Macedonian Australians or Macedonian Greek Australians. Personally I'd say "ethnic" should be included.--   Avg    20:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The most common qualifier in English literature is "Slav",(425+ 658 =1083) not "ethnic" (320+ 328 =648), but I can live with any of the two, if it makes any difference to anyone. NikoSilver 21:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to "abovementioned ethnic group" to avoid further controversy. The whole point of the table is to describe the situation in the first column and prescribe the appropriate naming convention in the second. Calling them one thing and then asking people to call them another in the same breath is rather incongruous. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant solution, but it is again a lime edit, it means ethnic Macedonians=abovementioned ethnic group. This is an edit after Future wrote to stop the lame edit. I ask Future to judge the situation. I think that is best to be precise and use ethnic Macedonians, but it is consensual agreement here. I agree on your incongruous point. That is why there is opposition and discontent about the naming by the ethnic Macedonians. (Toci (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

A big reply to Niko’s talk above. This is rather a partial view comparing only "ethnic Macedonians" and "Slav Macedonians" together with "Macedonian Slavs". The Google Scholar shows 80 hits for "Slavic Macedonians" as well. The truth is that we are refered mostly simply as Macedonians with some 10000 hits.

Don't forget to write that the Greek speaking English and Greek influenced scientists (especially the Greek history writers) use Slav Macedonians and in most cases they describe only the ethnic Macedonians who live in the Greek provinces in regard to historical events. Examples from Niko's link are: "...number of Greece's Slav Macedonians...", "The Slav Macedonians of the region were becoming increasingly responsive to calls from Yugoslav Macedonia...", "Most Slav Macedonians left the region during the Balkan Wars..." etc. The true conclusion is that the most common qualifier in English literature for the ethnic Macedonians living in Greece is Slav Macedonians. The minority qualified in English literature as Slav Macedonians declares itself as Makedones=Makedonci=Macedonians. They write in three languages so it is easy to see that they don't use Slavomakedones, but Makedones.

Since the Slav Macedonians in all the possible versions as terms are of special interest to the Greek editors my special interest is Greek Macedonians in all the possible versions. The "Greek Macedonians" have 72 hits. "Macedonian Greeks" brings 142 hits. That is almost nothing compared to the "Greeks" search that brings 391000 hits.

There are some false positives i.e. the result produced does not refer to the intented or desired meaning of the term. This error occurs, of course, in all of the above (and following) search results, including this one, "Macedonians"; to get a somewhat wider perspective here are the results for the terms "Greek Macedonian", 518 hits and "Macedonian Greek", 327 hits. --157.228.x.x (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless. It could meen Macedonian + Greek, the Macedonian and Greek language, by the hits. The only true hits are few books by Greek authors that are recently written. (Toci (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Not quite. "Greek Macedonian" as an 'ethno-regional' term, bounded by various (albeit finite) perceptions of a Greek ethno-linguistic (modern) identity, is treated or quoted by non-Greek authors as well. A notable, perhaps, example is quoted by LM Danforth in his (rather extensively cited in wp) book "Macedonian Conflict: [...]". And that's all we need really. --157.228.x.x (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is a general big confusion in the manual in all the terms regardless of the situations. Greek Macedonians can mean ethnic Macedonians from Greece as well. Slavic Macedonians, Macedonian Slavs, Slav Macedonians can mean Macedonian Serbians or Macedonian Bosnians.

The combination of the ethnicities and citizenships is probably the best understandable solution. Meaning ethnic Macedonian from Greece=Greek Macedonian, ethnic Greek from the province Macedonia and in Republic of Macedonia=Macedonian Greek. We are ethnic Macedonians as we are offically and that is different then Ancient Macedonian. The question are the Ancient Macedonian Greek? The answer is they are bilingual and binational, they are both Greek speaking and speakers of an unknown non-Slavic language that with the other Balkan languages influenced the todays Macedonian language (kaucia (garanty), Darron (Zdravje=Health), Artemis Blouvitis (Lovitsa=Huntress in MKD), koios (broi=counting, broj=number) etc. from XMK can be traced into the XMK language. The biliguality and binationality of the Ancient Macedonian is concept from livious.org.

The principle of sharing is never negotiated among the Greek and Macedonians editors. If the Ancien Macedonians are both Greek and Macedonians as ancestors of todays Macedonians there is a win-win situation. This is a preview of the most scary example article about Alexandar the Great. Alexandar the Great is Greek who has spread the Greek culture and language around the world and he is Macedonian who is regarded as ancestrial king by the Macedonians today etc... I will refer to the first belief published by Miladinov Brothers in 1861 in Macedonia that speaks about king (tzar) Alexand'r and his sister Roxandra. Miladinov Brothers also write about a belief for a city surrounded by water where the Macedonian kings (tzars) were used to be buried (the city of Voden=Eddesa). (Toci (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Once again you've filled the page with fringe theories. I think you should try blogging, you seem to be quite prolific. --   Avg    02:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Livius.org is source for Roman history based on Roman writers. It is not fringe theory, it is a theory. Macedonians kept their history as narative on a same way that was written by Herodotus. Our history exists as folk tales. That is why it is hard to assimilate the Macedonians and turn them in anything else then Macedonians. As Kekpos noticed this manual is incongruous if it is written literally.

In meanwhile I will refer to another folk tale about Alexander the Macedonian collected by Marko Cepenkov (in his 1972 collection, story 270, mentioned in the article about him) in Macedonia. In this story Alexandar Makedonski was put in a bottle where he saw how the fishes were organized and he organized his army in a same way in rows and in groups that had one big fish infront as commander. In meanwhile when he was in the see his sister got worried and turned in half-dolphin to look for him, but she was cursed to never found him (in the above myth Roxandra turned also in dolphin to escape from Alexandar). In the conclusion of the story says that Alexander managed to win over many armies and take big taxes from his winings. The conclusion of the folk tale is a historic fact. He also says that the commanders were in front of the army groups, again a historic fact about Alexander who was always ahead his army. (Toci (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

LOL, he wasn't talking about livius.org but your wonderful, scholarly synthesis, rather. Don't worry, though, Greece has its fair share of folklore about Alexander's sister (turned mermaid) asking sailors if the great king lives. I'm sure you'd find such stories about Alexander even in unexpected places. They thought that it was difficult to change Bulgarians into anything else too, and you see what happened. (though it wouldn't be half bad to have Thracians around, as well. shame that was never pulled off successfully.) 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not syntesizing anything, Alexander is in our national history an ancestral king as it is Greek in Greece's national history. Both statements are based on myths, there is nothing scholarly proved. Therefore the livius.org idea of bilinguality and binationality is interesting. It tangles both myths. (Toci (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC))

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. However, I agree with you...it's a shame that Greece and the Republic didn't manage to have compatible national myt...err 'official histories'. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Int' Organisations, the n-th time

The current exception made for international organisations, stating that their usage should be followed, leads to untenable and absurd results. In one article, applying this rule blindly [9] recently led to a stage where the clumsy "former Yugoslav Republic" occured in a single short article twenty-seven times. That's a crime against the English language and against our readers.

This needs to be reviewed. The argument that we should follow the naming conventions of international organisations in talking about them was never a a very strong one in the first place. There is no good objective reason why we should have to do so, because in talking about these entities, we don't become their mouthpieces. The exception could be tolerated as long as it was handled responsibly. But if people are hell-bent on taking it to these absurd extremes, something needs to be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, trying to change the rules simply because you dislike them. Interesting, given that you are so quick to ridicule the dislikes of others. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinions are exposed in the relevan discussion of the article FutPer mentions above. I have nothing else to repeat, except for the fact that what he characterizes as an "exception" is a crome against common sense, since this "exception" is the only internationally recognized name of this country. I rest my case!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree I think that arbitrarily switching the names of articles based on the internal preferences of certain organizations is more confusing and not helpful. It seems like applying "Republic of Macedonia" to all instances is easier and more consistent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding consistency, I should refer you to the Gdansk/Danzig case. There certainly are cases where we shouldn't apply a single name. According to you then, who are the Macedonians? I could also very well support that FYROM should be the name used in all instances since it is the only one accepted by both parties of the dispute. --   Avg    18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Luxembourg situation

Here is the Luxembourg (disambiguation) situation. Luxembourg (Belgium) is larger then Luxembourg, but they have no manual or there are any complains by Belgium about the use of Luxembourg. Can this example be used to simplify the Macedonia (disambiguation) and this manual? (Toci (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

A singular name violates Wikipedia NPOV

Its an odd situation as both names are fully legal. The matter is still undecided by the two nations nor the international community. Forcing one name or the other would mean breaking Wikipedias NPOV by offending millions of citizens of one of the two nations. Let individual article contributers decide... don't attempt to censor them until the issue is resolved by the international community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.233.155 (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistence of MOSMAC Appliance

I would like to express my dissapointment concerning the system on which the english wikipedia's function seems to be based on. Countless political points with no or irrelevant references are kept, as well as articles that based on the conventionts the wikipedia community has made itself should not exist.

And in order to prove my point,

1) As clearly stated at MOSMAC "In articles dealing with the predominant ethnic group of the Republic of Macedonia Use "Macedonians" (only if the meaning is unquestionably clear) or "ethnic Macedonians", " In articles where there is a need to distinguish the aforementioned ethnic group from the other ethnic groups inhabiting Macedonia Use "Macedonian Slavs" or "Slavic Macedonians" to distinguish them from the other ethnic groups in the region" The latter has been frequently been violated at articles or section concerning these "Macedonian Slavs", a term which is insistently avoided and replaced with "Macedonian" contrary to the convention made.

2) At the same page, the wikipedia community made another convention stating:

"Deprecated names (province) The following name is deprecated:

The name Aegean Macedonia should be avoided for general use, except in articles describing the irredentist concept. Note that Aegean Macedonia can be considered offensive for some Greeks, but the Greek government has not raised issue." Nevertheless, an article Aegean Macedonians exists, not to mention the propagandistic statements with no references, saying horrible things about the greek nation's behaviour towards these group of people. And although the page had been nominated for deletion, it still exists. And on top of that, I am informed I donnot have the right to re-nominate this monstrosity so soon for debate.

3) I also disagree with the concept of some conventions themselves, such as the right for this nation to use the term Macedonians to identify themselves, but for the greek people to try to avoid the use of plain Macedonians to identify themselves, but need to add Greek next to Macedonia. Talking about neutrality..

4) The concept of the conventions indicates that for internal reasons, each side may use the terms it recognizes, as well the internationally accepted terms used when refferring to the UN and the organizations, in respect to their onomatology. And although at FYROM related articles, the internally accepted terms are used freely, the Greece related topics are invaded with propagandistic maps of uncertain quality, using terms as Aegean Macedonians, Rep. of Macedonia, as well as balling up Arvanites and their language with the Albanian immigrants. All these points confuse the reader, who cannot distinguish what macedonia really means. It's like a ball of confusion. Not to mention the maps indicating pieces of modern greece as slavomacedonian terriroties.

Using either FYROM or RoM form appears to still be valid

I noticed that some contributers with a strong FYROM POV suggesting the use of "Republic of Macedonia" is the only valid option for FYROM related articles (pointing to this Wikipedia:MOSMAC article as evidence of this policy). However as far as I can... there still isn't actually a consensus to create a concrete policy. At the very top of the Wikipedia:MOSMAC it clearly states.

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process.

The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. :Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Since the naming dispute is still an ongoing unresolved issue undergoing official international mediation, since many NGOs and governments still use one of both names, and since Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral political point of view on the subject matter (even if it is inconvenient to some party or another) I do not see any currently existing roadblock to leaving it up to the discretion of individual contributers to decide. (Unless as a newbie I have somehow misunderstood something written on this page)

However, because it seems likely a revert war would result from this, my suggestion would be we could at least reach a temporary consensus that both names are always used for titles, section headings, or the first reference on the page. If individual users want to waste time grinding it out after that that its up to them. It seems sensible what really actually matters from a Wikipedia standpoint is that readers simply understand what nation is being talked about in various articles.

Adding a '/FYROM' or '/Republic of Macedonia' to the occasional title/section/first_reference won't actually use too many more wikibytes I imagine. It may be an odd solution but it seems to make sense given the variables of this odd problem. (at least it does to me:)

Or again.... if FYROM and Greek citizens can't come to a consensus by acknowledging both names are currently in use, we simply leave it to individual contributers as-is. (which I technically think is already the case) Crossthets (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason the guideline is currently marked as "proposed" and not as commonly accepted is that it sways too far to the Greek side, by creating artificial POV islands of special naming rules by topic domain, which normally isn't done in Wikipedia. If we get rid of the guideline and declare it non-binding (and we might well do that), the result will be that normal Wikipedia policy kicks in undisturbed. That means: WP:USEENGLISH. According to WP:NAME and its specifications WP:NCON and WP:NCGN, every article gets titled with whatever name the majority of native English speakers would most easily recognise. Most native English speakers are accustomed to call the country in question simply "Macedonia". That includes news reporting, academic writing, travel guides, basically everything except the very narrow specialised contexts of political officialese in international organisations, where politically correct bureaucratic usage imposes "f. Y. R. ..." or some variant of that. Apart from this criterion, we do also look for what an entity calls itself officially. Other people's political opinions about a name do not play any role at all. That means that "neutrality" is not at issue here. The only thing that we need to observe neutrally is what English usage actually does.

Taking additionally into account legitimate disambiguation needs, we'd end up with "Macedonia (country)" (which, in running text, could be shortened to "Macedonia" in most contexts), or stay with "Republic of Macedonia" as it is now. Changing further towards using "f. Y. R.... " more often is completely out of the question under our policies.

The double naming practice you suggest may sound like a fair idea, I acknowledge that, but it won't fly, not because it wastes too many bytes, but because it wastes our readers' patience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Or we could simply ignore the above original research and apply the internationally accepted name throughout Wikipedia, as should be done in the first place if POV pushers like the above editor hadn't imposed RoM over us. Fut. Perf. and objectivity have divorced long long ago. There is a Greek proverb for this case "Και κερατάς και δαρμένος", meaning roughly "adding insult to injury". This is what Fut. does here to all the Greek editors. They have been subjected to watching RoM POV being established as the norm and now they are told that even this RoM POV is not enough. Let's change then Macedonia and Macedonians to mean FYROM and Slavomacedonians and to hell with the Greeks who dare to claim they have their own Macedonia and Macedonians.--   Avg    20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

When we established this guideline it was based on a very simple rule of thumb - call entities what they call themselves, unless there's a more common name in English. That doesn't mean we're not endorsing their names. What it does mean, however, is that we don't disendorse their names because someone else objects to them. There are plenty of naming disputes around the world - Israel/Palestine, Kosovo/Kosova, Taiwan/"Chinese Taipei", and so on. NPOV forbids us from implicitly or explicitly declaring that a particular name is invalid due to nationalist objections from some other country or group. The fact that Greek nationalists object is, I'm afraid, something we can't take into account when deciding how to refer to the country and its people. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Again the usual "only Greek nationalists use FYROM" which is of course false, unless UN, EU, almost every international organisation and 80 countries are ruled by Greek nationalists. As I've said so many times Greek nationalists object to any mention of the name Macedonia or any composite in any non-Greek context). But let's get to the point: Wikipedia is not consistent. Guidelines are not applied universally. After all they are guidelines and not policies. As an example at Burma (an article that many - and I personally - push to be renamed to the self-preferred name of Myanmar), the criteria are different because this suits the majority involved with the said article. This has been the case here as well, this has been the case in other articles. So since the only certain fact is that there is NO consistency, we have two routes: Either force consistency throughout Wikipedia, or acknowledge each case is special and deal with it accordingly. It seems we've taken the second route. Now some people claim that we should pretend that Wiki has taken the first route and apply it to this article. --   Avg    07:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason the UN, EU etc use the FYROM name is because of opposition by Greek nationalists. If Greece had not kicked up a fuss, the country would undoubtedly have been recognised by its constitutional name. We're not an agency of any of those organisations and, unlike them, we don't have to take political considerations into account in naming - there's no "heckler's veto". As for Myanmar/Burma, I've not been involved in it, but I gather it's something of a special case because the naming of the country is genuinely not settled (the government uses Myanmar, the opposition uses Burma). That's very different to the RoM, where the name is totally undisputed within the country. So there is consistency after all. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Futper, Your analysis is fairly accurate though just tilted to the other side of the fence. Reading through your diffs seems to show you are generally honest (if a tad quick to anger :). I hope you believe when I say I have no desire to be anyone's persecutor and try to keep an open mind regardless my personal feelings. What is clear here is one (or more :) of us is the victim of propaganda.. and one (or more :) of us is the persecutor. Unfortunately emotional involvement, our egos, and bad facts can sometimes cloud our judgment.

If someone from FYROM showed me a series of verified carbon dated tablets showing Alexander's name inscribed in some slavic dialect... I would indeed change my tune and even apologize. To me this is what reasonable people concerned with truth do... act reasonable rather than live in the ignorance of a web of lies. That's exactly how great people and civilizations are built. However, until I can reach the truth that you seem to see, I can only use reason and whatever knowledge I have acquired directly (or though others like yourself) to formulate my opinions.

So getting to why I am giving the big speech above? Please don't be offended when I say after reviewing your analysis and considering your editing history... I find it highly unlikely you are trying to help the Greek position by advising the status quo:) In fact in one of your diffs you specifically mentioned to someone else your desire to lock down the "Republic of Macedonia". (at this juncture I have no reason to think you would not have already done so if you could hav :).

WP:NCON

it states in the Resolving disputed names within articles section

Using names within articles can be complicated by historical and local contexts, as well as the difference between the type of entity that is being named. Where two or more names are commonly used in the present day for an entity, the names should be given at the start of an article with the article name listed first, then the alternate names in alphabetical order by name (which is perfectly fine.. basically a two )

It also states at the top document "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". I'm new to Wikipedia edited (only because of recent events by FYROM citizens have I become involved for the first time) but I've been a fan of Wikipedia for a long time. I trust it to be fair and make the exceptions if the exception is warranted.

WP:NCGN

another comment at the top "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"... so ditto with the above

It does make mention of the most popular english word as you mention... but I hope that Wikipedia editors are capable of considering the human rights of people they would punish by locking out one side or the other.

WP:USEENGLISH

ditto on the "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception".

more on using the default english name... but if a name dispute over an entire country isn't oddball enough for an exception I don't know what is. (on the bright side it hasn't deteriorated into another Israel-Palestine situation yet)

WP:NAME

More on the default English point you mention. Again I have to ask myself are Wikipedians going to try and crush the human rights of millions of self-identifying Macedonians.. or are they going to try and be considerate to both sides?

Anyhow. I'm going to leave the issue alone for a few weeks while I focus on other articles. Please consider the two name option I suggested. Thanks for the info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossthets (talk • contribs) 22:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Crush the human rights..."? Oh please. What human right? I've heard this before in this debate, but it's just plain bizarre. There may be a human right for X to be allowed to name themselves the way they wish. There is hardly a human right for X to insist that Y must name them the way they wish. There most certainly isn't a human right for Y to insist on Z naming X the way Y wishes. Where do you guys get these bizarre ideas from? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I presume this is a reference to the belief that it's an infringement of X's human rights if Y "steals" "their" name. Apparently the Greek Macedonians feel somehow diminished if the Slavic Macedonians use the name "Macedonians". I'm not quite sure how this works - maybe their precious bodily fluids are being sapped and impurified in the process? Anyway, did you really expect nationalist disputes to be rational? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's totally not the case. It is an infringement of human rights if someone is using "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" without a qualifier, because they monopolise the name and exclude everyone else. Is it really that difficult to understand? Just tell them they should use "Slavic Macedonians", they immediately go mad. Just tell them their country cannot be named Republic of Macedonia but Republic of Upper/Slavic/Northern/Vardar/whatever Macedonia. While Greeks DO use "Greek Macedonians" and do refer to "Greek Macedonia". But of course, it's the bad Greeks, again.--   Avg    16:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Which human right exactly are you referring to? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you had actually bothered to read the declaration you wouldn't ask this... Article 12: Greeks honour and reputation is attacked, Article 15:Greeks are deprived of their Macedonian ancestry, Article 19:Greeks right of expression is suppressed, Article 29:If the other party builds a case about their rights, they have an obligation to respect Greeks rights and freedoms.--   Avg    18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. This is even more pathetic than I expected. From now on, this editor has forfeited every right of ever being taken seriously again with anything they say. I'll strongly recommend everybody on this and related pages simply start ignoring them or roll them back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your words are music to me. It's an honour to be insulted by a rogue editor.--   Avg    18:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's much simpler than that: you're claiming a "right" not to be offended. I've seen that sort of thing claimed plenty of times (by fundamentalists, for instance) but of course that's just a licence for one group to suppress the free speech of another group. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the whole issue (do Greeks have a right to be called Macedonians or not? Simple question, can you please answer?) but since you mentioned the issue, well, this is exactly what Article 12 and Article 29 say. Perhaps you could take your objections with those you actually wrote the declaration?--   Avg    19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the declaration applies universally to individuals, not to groups. Some of the Muslim countries have been making similar arguments at the UN for several years, claiming that criticism of Islam (such as the Danish Muhammad cartoons) should be outlawed because it violates the rights you cite or some unenumerated right not to be offended. Needless to say, this isn't an argument that any Western nation is ever likely to endorse. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO I'm not sure what you're trying to do here (equate the Hellenic Republic official position with Islamic fundamentalism? I think that's too far, even coming from you), however you still haven't answered. Do Greeks have a right to be called Macedonians? Do they have a right to call their region Macedonia? I cannot imagine you saying no to that, which only leads to the obvious solution, we need to have a qualifier for both Macedonias and Macedonians or else we deny one or the other's right to be called what they like. This whole discussion started when Fut.Perf. almost said he's doing us a favour by permitting the use of "FYROM"...--   Avg    20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course they have a right to call themselves whatever they like. The point is that so do the Slavic Macedonians. Here on Wikipedia, we don't attempt to take sides by saying "these people have no right to call themselves this" or otherwise repudiating them - we simply report the fact that they do call themselves that. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You will never see me (or any Greek except some idiots) saying Slav Macedonians do not have the right to call themselves Macedonians. My tongue has grown hair (Greek expression meaning I've said it many times:-)) repeating that both groups have this right, therefore none of the two should monopolise the term and exclude the other from the name, not in Wikipedia, not in real life. This is the logic behind the FYROM name, not nationalistic pressure from Greece. The international community says, find a solution on how you're going to name your Macedonias and we will all adopt it, until then, use the temporary name. So it is a perfectly valid name and I cannot accept Fut.Perf. saying it is Greek POV. And again, just do a simple test, ask the Greek Macedonian editors to refer to themselves solely as "Greek Macedonians". They will accept. Ask the Slav Macedonian editors to refer to themselves solely as "Slav Macedonians". They will refuse. I think this speaks volumes by itself on who is the intransigent. --   Avg    21:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

therefore none of the two should monopolise the term and exclude the other from the name, That seems a curious basis for arguing that the Republic must be called FYROM or even Slav Macedonia. Could you elaborate a little on the connecting links? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply reacting here, I have not initiated this discussion. Fut.Perf. has been pushing as far as I can remember towards rendering the name FYROM invalid and irrelevant. This is an insult to the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia. Just to clarify, I'm not supporting any name for the country like "Slav Macedonia" or other qualifier before it is accepted by both parties of the dispute. FYROM, on the other hand, is the only name accepted by both parties, the UN, all international organisations and the only one that is NPOV. Any other name is simply not neutral. However, in a FYROM context, I can accept the use of RoM since it is unambiguous and not offensive. So what I believe should be the best solution and the least offensive to all parties involved is the complement of what happens now, a POV island in FYROM-related articles with the name RoM to respect the country's sensitivities and FYROM used everywhere else. Because this is the actual situation in today's world and not the virtual reality Fut.Perf. wants us to believe. Just watch for yourself in a few hours FYROM parading in the Olympics (not RoM). --   Avg    23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindenting.) I'm afraid that misses a couple of important points. First, the idea of "monopolising a name" is inherently silly. If two or more entities use the same name there may well be an issue about confusion, but certainly not "ownership" - there's no trademarks over geographical names. Think of Birmingham, England vs Birmingham, Alabama; the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Belgian province of Luxembourg; Congo-Brazzaville and the Democratic Republic of Congo; and so on. Somehow those entities manage to carry on functioning despite someone else using "their" names. The only reason this ever became an issue in the first place is because Greek nationalists originally disagreed with any use of the word "Macedonia" to refer to the RoM. Avg, you'll recall the howls of protest from hardline nationalists when the Mitsotakis government recognised the country as FYROM. The issue has always fundamentally been about a perceived injury to national pride.

Second, it's not the case that the country is exclusively called FYROM in contexts other than "FYROM-related articles". Like it or not, it's common for it to be called simply "Macedonia" in English, for instance in media reporting. It's certainly called FYROM in some diplomatic contexts but as I said above, Wikipedia is not a diplomatic agency nor subject to the rules of any such agency. We have our own rules, based on our own standards, most importantly NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also WP:COMMONNAME. We use Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia because English in general does; Avg's point of view is one POV, but most English-speakers do not share it; I know Hellenes who do not.

Btw, when did the Republican government accept FYROM? Our article on the Macedonia naming dispute does not appear to mention such a striking fact. (Not that it matters; WP:Official names is right in saying how little we abide by them.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have abstained from all these pathetic discussions in this pathetic page, and I'll keep doing that. I just wanted to comment on something written above: "The only reason the UN, EU etc use the FYROM name is because of opposition by Greek nationalists". It is a shame, a real shame to label almost a whole nation as "nationalists", and I feel really sorry for the user who edited something like that. It reveals however the esteem he has for the particular nation, and the POV way he treats the whole FYROM-GREECE issue.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It accepted that it could only enter the UN by using that reference (inside the UN), and other international organisations just copied that system when the Greek representative kicked up a fuss (i.e. everywhere). But yes, Kiro Gligorov did say at the time that such a reference was unacceptable, due to the negative connotation of "Yugoslavia". BalkanFever 11:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the point is: when we write about the country's EU acession, when we write about the country's participation in international organisations/events, we can call the country what we (Wikipedia) call it. Some (most) sources will say "Macedonia's EU acession" or "Macedonia in Eurovison", some will say "FYROM's EU acession" and "FYROM in Eurovision", heck some will say "Skopje...". They use their naming conventions, and we use ours - that's why we have them. Obviously, the name under which the country participates should be noted in the intro or wherever, but after that information has been conveyed, it will be clear what we are writing about, so we shoud write about it in our words. BalkanFever 11:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

But isn't the policy more like "We don't make the rules" since we only represent what sources say. So we can't just imagine a solution or work it out on ourselves cause that'd be OR. It's not a question about what "we" call it cause we're not anybody in this - we must look at what name sources use. --Laveol ^T 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the sources do use "Macedonia". Newspapers do. The relevant sources in naming questions are those that document what general English usage does, not what some particular participant in the situation does. And once we have determined what general English usage does, we stick to that, no matter what the preferences of individual sources are. – By the way, even if we did stick to participant-specific preferences, the preferences of the R.o.M. itself in how it chooses to talk about its European accession process would have an equal claim to the preferences of the EU. And R.o.M. authorities in their own usage never, ever use "FYROM". Why would we priviledge the naming preferences of one party of the process over that of the other? But anyway, that's moot, because we shouldn't do either anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We represent what the sources "say" meaning the information they are conveying, not the exact words they use (too much of that is a copyvio). All the sources convey the same information - about the country and it's acession to the EU, but they convey it using different words. BalkanFever 11:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, I didn't say which one should be used. Did you see it anywhere? --Laveol ^T 12:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just wanted to make clear what the basis of such decisions is, and what it shouldn't be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It is rather sad that news sources are equated with international institutions. I'm still waiting to see how low some people are willing to go to justify their POVs. And of course, the whole news sources thing is misleading, since news sources also refer to Greek Macedonia as simply Macedonia. It has never been proven that news sources favour ROM over FYROM. They simply favour "Macedonia" over anything else for convenience purposes. --   Avg    16:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How low are some people willing to go to justify their POVs? I think your own absurd comments on "human rights" qualifies as the nadir in this discussion. 72.72.97.16 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Aegean Macedonian

Can someone described why it is offensive to Greeks because I don't understand how the term can be. Ethnic Macedonians from Greece call themselves Aegeans or Aegean Macedonians, that is different from forcing a name on the Greeks suck as "Grkomani" or "Christian Turk." It is also different from forcing a name on the Macedonians such as "Skopjan" or "BulgaroSkopjan." I believe the only way Aegean Macedonian can be offensive to Greeks is if ethnic Macedonians call Greeks that (due to past Hellenization). Ethnic Macedonians self determinate as "Aegean Macedonian," which cannot be offensive for another ethnic group (Greeks) since the name is not forced upon the latter.

MY only other argument would be the term Aegean Macedonian shows ethnic Macedonians have lived in Greece in the past and live in Greece in the present. Since the Greek government denies the minority, it may be offensive since it goes against governmental policy (somehow the offensiveness of non-recognition of the minority isn't worried about).

Anyways, ethnic Macedonians from Greece could also call themselves "Greek Macedonian" (which they have been called in the past) but that would conflict with the regional Greek Macedonians (Greek ethnicity, Macedonian regionally). Mactruth (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is offensive to Greeks because Aegean Macedonia is an irredentist term used specifically to deny Greek sovereignty in Macedonia. Furthermore, if our neighbours to the north call Greek Macedonia "Aegean Macedonia" in order to deny its Greekness, then "Aegean Macedonians" implies that the population of the region is also non-Greek. It is the same as calling only the (non-Bulgarian, non-Serbian) Slavs of Macedonia "Macedonians", to the detriment of the Greeks and other ethnic groups inhabiting Macedonia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Templates, again

I object on the strongest possible terms to Template:MKD (North Macedonia) with only the name "Macedonia" as a descriptor. There has never been a consensus on that and (unsurprisingly) people keep using the template in more and more articles pushing out the name that supposedly should be used throughout Wikipedia, which is Republic of Macedonia.--   Avg    20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to have been the purpose of this unilateral edit back in February, which was never discussed on the relevant talk page. A rather shifty way of interpreting the already shaky "consensus" regarding templates, which was essentially a question of economy of space in country navigation templates. There was never any agreement regarding Template:MKD, which is only used in the main body of articles where space isn't an issue. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is wrong on just about every count. First, the template is only for use in reference to the country, which WP:MOSMAC#Country anticipates "where the meaning is unquestionably clear." Second, the shortened form used in templates such as this is specifically provided for in the same section: "In the case of templates linking only to country articles, where there is no possibility of the Republic of Macedonia being confused with the Greek region, the short form "Macedonia" may be used." Third, it's the standard approach across the majority of our sister wikis, pre-dating my action in February to shorten the name; most use their version of "Macedonia" rather than "Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM" (which, typically, only the Greek template uses). If you can find any examples of this template being used in confusing contexts, let's see them. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"In the case of templates linking only to country articles." In other words, country navigation templates listing multiple countries, not Template:MKD which lists just the one and which almost never appears in a template itself. User:Avg is right to suggest that the reason you made the change, without any discussion or prior agreement, seems to have been to push "Macedonia" at the expense of the actual article location. Your interpretation and the lack of confusion aside, Template:MKD is mostly used in articles where there is no other mention of the country, directly contravening the manual's prescription that "the first mention should normally read Republic of Macedonia, with a link". While an argument could be made for using the short form in country navigation templates where space is scarce, the same simply cannot be said for the places where this particular template is actually used. In our earlier discussions above, you yourself argued that "there always has been consensus that the MoS relates solely to article space". Template:MKD is used almost exclusively in article space. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking my words. Read a little further in that discussion and you'll see that I added wording to the MoS to clarify the situation as it applies to templates. Also, you're misreading the MoS. It says: "The name Macedonia (used by itself without modifiers) should not generally be used to refer to the country, due to the need to differentiate between the country and the Greek region, unless the meaning is unquestionably clear." In contexts where only the country is being mentioned - such as the list of countries operating the T-72 tank or member countries of the Universal Postal Union - there is no possibility of confusion between the country and the Greek region. As I asked before, can you identify any instances where the use of the template could cause confusion? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that after all it is you who has shaped MOSMAC to the current phrasing to suit your needs. I believe though you're violating the spirit and essence of this Manual of Style, that has always been "use Republic of Macedonia for the country except where there is absolutely no ambiguity or controversy to use Macedonia". Now this seems to have shifted to "use Macedonia for the country except where there is ambiguity and controversy and you should use Republic of Macedonia". The truth table has shifted from only one case in four where you can use Macedonia to three cases out of four where you can use Macedonia. --   Avg    20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And you're missing the point entirely, Chris. This has nothing to do with "confusion" or lack thereof. With all due respect, I think you're the one who is, rather deliberately, misreading the MoS: "Even then, the first mention should normally read Republic of Macedonia". In the articles you cite, the first mention is to "Macedonia". Whether this is done with the use of a template or not is an irrelevant technicality; it shouldn't be done at all. The notion that Template:MKD is in any way equivalent to, say, Template:Countries of Europe, is patently ridiculous. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not "my needs" but the needs of Wikipedia. Might I remind you that we're not here to advance Greek nationalist viewpoints? Our sole legitimate purpose in using the "Republic of" prefix is to avoid confusion with the Greek region. It's an overt violation of NPOV to use that terminology for POV reasons. If there is no possibility of confusion, there is no policy (as opposed to political) reason why we should not use the common vernacular name for the country, just as we do for every other country in the world. As for the "misreading" claim, Kekrops, you're again cherry-picking; the line reads in full: "Even then, the first mention should normally read Republic of Macedonia, with a link (some exceptions are discussed below)." The "no possibility of confusion" exception follows immediately afterwards. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And it applies to template space, not articles. Template:MKD, on the other hand, appears overwhelmingly in article space. If the "even then" part doesn't apply here, where does it apply? As for advancing "Greek nationalist" viewpoints, you've already insulted us enough in the past and it's simply inappropriate behaviour. Your personal views on Greeks are irrelevant to the discussion. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please tell me what the oh-so big difference is between a template and a list? BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 23:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple. A list only appears in the main body of an article, which is covered by the "even then" clause. The entire argument for exempting templates in the first place was based on the assertion that the existing naming consensus pertained only to "article space". If that's the case, it should be applied accordingly. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I ask: can you point to any examples where the template may be causing confusion? You are not offering any arguments here other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The only reason why we need to disambiguate the country from the region is, as the MoS says, to resolve confusion between the two. If there is no confusion, what is the problem here, other than that you have a POV objection? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already answered you. What is the problem with using the "established term", other than that you have a POV objection? You haven't offered any arguments as to why "Republic of Macedonia" needs to be shortened to "Macedonia", other than censoring "Greek nationalist viewpoints" and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I see no reason justifying the shortening of the name. But we all now ChrisO, and his lack of objectivity in the Macedonia-related field. I never expected anything better from him. In any case what I would like to stress is that this template should not be exploited as a vehicle so that the constitutional name is used in international organizations' articles, where the country is recognized as former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That is, for example, what happened in Universal Postal Union, which recognizes no Macedonia and, as a matter of fact, categorizes the country under T (I followed the trend established in the UN members article: List the country as fYROM but under M). I'll check to see if there are other instances of misuse of the template in question ChrisO made so "elegant" some months ago.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, even the constitutional name is rejected as an artefact of "Greek nationalism". In the new orthodoxy, only "Macedonia" is acceptable, and God help anyone who dares to suggest otherwise. The next logical step is to delete Macedonia and all other such articles and replace them with the country article. Unless, of course, other admins start getting involved and see what's been going on unchallenged for the past few months. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this is probably futile given the POVs being expressed here, but let me offer a few arguments. First, the only reason why we use "Republic of Macedonia" in the first place is to avoid confusion with the region or Greek province. Where there is no possibility of such confusion, there is no need to disambiguate. Second, the standard convention in English, when referring to a country, is to use the short form - "Germany" rather than "Federal Republic of Germany", "Libya" rather than "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", "Mexico" rather than "United Mexican States". Third, the short-form convention is the standard for almost all flag templates. There are a very few exceptions where states have overlapping names, such as People's Republic of China / Republic of China (Taiwan) or the two Koreas, but not for names that might overlap with subnational entities (hence "Luxembourg", not "Grand Duchy of Luxembourg"). Fourth, this is no different to established practice on most of the other wikis - consistency is a good thing. Fifth, Kekrops' claims about the "next logical step" are frankly ridiculous. Nobody is proposing such a scenario. And finally, since nobody has bothered to answer the key question yet, let me pose it yet again: where might the template be causing confusion? Your entire argument seems to be based on an insistence that the name must be disambiguated everywhere, which the MoS doesn't support. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So Chris now refers to himself as "we", obviously having assumed the role of the official Wikipedia representative. By the way Chris you proved me right, you want "Macedonia" to be the country's name and only in specific cases to use "Republic of Macedonia". This is your POV. Wikipedia has established (to the disagreement of most Greeks may I add, so this isn't a "Greek nationalistic" view) that "Republic of Macedonia" will be used everywhere and "Macedonia" is to be used only in very specific cases and only after Republic of Macedonia has already been the first mention. Do not try to present false facts as true. --   Avg    19:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give up already, Avg! I don't "want" the country's name to be anything in particular. I only "want" to follow the most basic Wikipedia standards - NPOV and common terminology. If applying those standards leads to a result that offends your ideological preferences, that's too bad - that's simply not a relevant consideration as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The MoS already states explicitly that using "Macedonia" by itself is perfectly acceptable if there is no possibility of confusion between the state and the region or province. Now, are you going to answer my question? Where is the template causing confusion? I'm going to keep asking this until you answer it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris there are 300+ pages linking to [Template:MKD]: [10]. So what should I do, search each one of them and look for any ambiguity? This is not the point. The point is that we have already over 300 pages (which are about to grow geometrically if this is not stopped soon) that mention the country as "Macedonia" and only "Macedonia", with a full disregard of a need for disambiguation. Yes, people may understand what this is about, however they may not. It is not their job to do this. It is the role of the encyclopaedia to make it perfectly clear what this name is about, and what it isn't about. --   Avg    00:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If no article is ambiguous, we have no problem. If an article is ambiguous, it makes no difference whether the offending mention of Macedonia is through a template or in plain text; we must live with it until somebody finds it, at which point we should fix it. (Most of those 300 articles appear to be through one of the four grand templates, which aren't problems.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopeless

We have discussed templates before; they are addressed by this failed piece of guidance only insofar as they affect articles: Template:MKD exists, as far as I can tell, only to be transcluded into footer templates like Template:Slavic-speaking states. Does anyone deny that the Republic is a Slavic-speaking state? Does anyone assert that the Province is a state?

I further notice that nobody has come up with an example where this template is transcluded so as to violate this guidance. I doubt there is one; none of these footers are going to be the first mention of the Republic; all of them deal with states (see the list, four active templates and a sandbox here).

There is no meeting of the minds here; there never was. When we wrote this attempted guideline, we did not intend to make a field for wikilawyering. There can be no consensus for this; it is not a guideline, it is a failure. The various nationalists here will not like WP:POV unmodified any better than they do this; but what goes around comes around. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not only used in footer templates. It is also used in international organizations' articles (in the main article's list).--Yannismarou (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For example? and are any of them likely to invite a subnational entity like the Province to be a member? But if the transcluded template produces article text at variance with MOSMAC, the solution is simple: edit the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier simply to edit Template:MKD, which is the root of the entire problem? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I really wouldn't be so pessimistic. The MoS is in regular use, it's helped to reduce POV warring over the Macedonia naming issue, and it's gained general acceptance in practice. There will always be a handful of irreconcilables who reject it wholly or in part; that can't be helped. Don't mistake a lack of unanimity for a lack of consensus. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. I object to this ever becoming a guideline, because it is not consensus. There are at least two readings of it: what it actually says, to the best of our abilities, and what the partisans would like it to say; neither of these is consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly if there's ONE thing everybody agrees to is the need to actually have a MOSMAC. The discussion is about content. And yet, even with something so unambiguously clear, you both manage to spin it and claim that objecting on content means rejecting the MoS itself. And if anything, most of the discussion above wasn't even about objections on content, it was about the inconsistent application of MOSMAC throughout Wikipedia, something that you would supposedly agree with!--   Avg    00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I think we should never have a MOSMAC. Without it, we would be applying straightforward policies: Use English, not Demotic; be Verifiable, be neutral. That would be much easiwer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But that's just it, PM. Apart from the four templates, it has crept into hundreds of articles as well, providing a convenient loophole for those who would rather ignore this guideline's prescription that the first mention be to "Republic of Macedonia". I'm glad you agree that "what matters is the final appearance of the article", which is what I have been arguing here for days. Is there anything we can do to address this problem? My first suggestion would be to restore Template:MKD to the status quo ante (and possibly create an abridged version for transclusion in footer templates). ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And if it's the only mention, in a section/passage that states "countries which..." (or something to that effect), or where it can be easily inferred that only countries or country governments are being referred to, where is "Macedonia" confusing? The point of this MOS is to stop confusion, not to wikilawyer. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 07:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So what's the point of the "even then" clause? "The name Macedonia (used by itself without modifiers) should not generally be used to refer to the country, due to the need to differentiate between the country and the Greek region, unless the meaning is unquestionably clear. This will often be the case in articles dealing only with the internal affairs of the Republic. Even then, the first mention should normally read Republic of Macedonia, with a link (some exceptions are discussed below)." My understanding of that passage is that North Macedonia is inappropriate for the hundreds of articles like Universal Postal Union, which certainly do not deal with the internal affairs of the Republic. Your argument is that any list containing the word "country" somehow exempts you from having to use the long form, but that goes against the spirit as well as the letter of the guideline. Besides, the word country itself is ambiguous; England and Scotland are countries, and separate members of some international organizations, but not sovereign states. And Macedonia itself is often called a country in Greek, as in Μακεδονία ξακουστή, του Αλεξάνδρου η χώρα. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The article in question translates χώρα as "land", which would be good Attic. Are you contending that it can mean "nation-state"? (Although BF is right on this: it's English that matters.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not contending that it can mean "country" in the sense of "nation-state"; I'm telling you that it does. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I wrote the "even then" clause. I envisaged several mentions of the Republic in any article which dealt with it and not with the province. I included normally, which you quote, precisely as a catchall, for cases which I did not consider. This is one; for there is no ambiguity. Greece is a member of the UPU, and all its members are nation-states (or dependencies of such states, which are clearly marked). The Province is neither; no-one would expect the Province to be on that list, any more than, say, Attica. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Please read more carefully. This will often be the case in articles dealing only with the internal affairs of the Republic does not say, and was not written to say, This will only be the case in articles dealing only with the internal affairs of the Republic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you accept that the "even then" clause prescribes that the first mention of the country in an article should be to "Republic of Macedonia", regardless of whether it's produced by a piece of code called a "template" or not? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not in English though. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 09:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, however, the "even then" clause is. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not want to continue my participation in this discussion which offends my intelligence, but ChrisO's ridiculous (sometimes even hillarious arguments) obliged me to return and comment on what I read above. First of all, this is what MOSMAC says:

• "The name Macedonia (used by itself without modifiers) should not generally be used to refer to the country, due to the need to differentiate between the country and the Greek region, unless the meaning is unquestionably clear. This will often be the case in articles dealing only with the internal affairs of the Republic ... In the case of templates linking only to country articles, where there is no possibility of the Republic of Macedonia being confused with the Greek region, the short form "Macedonia" may be used. Where templates list both the Republic of Macedonia and either the Greek region or the wider geographical region, the link should read Republic of Macedonia. The term Republic of Macedonia, being the self-identifying name, is the established term that Wikipedia generally uses to refer to the country."

I had not followed the general discussion, but I suppose that these provisions were the result of a consensus, and I take them as the standard rule in the Macedonia-related articles. The problem here is that ChrisO's POV practices and arguments lead to a (non consensual) shift of what we call in law school "burden of proof". And this is no wikilawyering guys! It is the plain truth! MOSMAC clearly stated that "RoM" is the standard term, and "Macedonia" the "exception" for describing the country. Therefore, the use of RoM everywhere (articles, lists, templates etc.) should not be justified; those proposing something against the standard rule (Macedonia, fYROM etc.) have the burden to support their arguments.

In this discussion ChrisO has excellently shifted the burden of proof to those disagreeing with him. Avg has to prove why he is in support of the standard term! Not him who tries in praxis to change MOSMAC in the way it is conveniant to his own POV beliefs (and this is normal for a person who has previously labelled all Greeks in support of the fYROM name [about 95% of the population!] as "nationalists")! I congratulate him for that, but I want to assure him that he will not be able to change through sophistications what MOSMAC says. So, the main question is not the one he addresses to Avg (where does the template cause confuses?), but the one he has to answer himself with convincing arguments: Why did he change the standard (per MOSMAC) term the template used? This is the basic and actually only question this discussion should be about. A NPOV, non-controversial, non-confusing term has been changed, and this happened without any prior discussion.

And this is another problematic aspect of what happens in Macedonia-related articles. Some users (some of them with adm powers like ChrisO) believe that they have the right to do whatever they want even if they have a clear POV in the whole issue. They think they can even convince us that black is white and vice versa.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't another administrator simply undo this edit? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't given any reason why it's "bad", other than that you don't like it. I've pointed out that almost every other flag template uses the conventional short form; why should this one be different? The MoS says that "in templates that link only to country articles, where there is no possibility of the Republic of Macedonia being confused with the Greek region, the short form "Macedonia" may be used"; this template meets those criteria, so where's the problem? The purpose of this guideline isn't to promote any particular POV, it's to avoid confusion between the country, the region and the province; where is the confusion? All I'm seeing here are assertions that the short form is "wrong", without any explanation of why it's "wrong" other than that "Greeks don't like it" (to paraphrase Yannismarou). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, actually. Almost every other flag template uses the conventional short form because that is where the corresponding country article is located. Come to think of it, Template:USA and Template:GBR link to United States and United Kingdom respectively, not America and Britain. In other words, country flag templates follow country article names - not conventional short forms or whatever else - with one glaring exception: this. Why? When "Republic of Macedonia" is moved to "Macedonia", you can argue the point to your heart's content. Until then, you will have to provide a valid reason as to why you don't like Wikipedia's "established term". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"America" and "Britain" are colloquial forms - they're names of geographical entities (a continent and an island respectively) that are only a part of the country concerned or of which the country is only a portion. The conventional forms are abbreviated versions of their political names, the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The only reason we have "Republic of Macedonia" at that name is to disambiguate from the region of Macedonia and the province of Macedonia. Note that we don't have "Federal Republic of Germany" or "Kingdom of Spain", because there's no need to disambiguate those geographical names. We certainly don't use "Republic of Macedonia" just to satisfy Greek ideology, any more than we could use "Macedonia" to satisfy Macedonian ideology. That would be a fundamental violation of NPOV. Where we use "Republic of Macedonia", it's solely to disambiguate when disambiguation is needed, and where we use "Macedonia" by itself - whether referring to the province or the country - it's solely where ambiguity doesn't exist. As I've pointed out repeatedly, nobody has identified any situations where the use of "Macedonia" in this particular template is in any way ambiguous. The only reason we include the "Republic of" moniker in the article name is to disambiguate. You're also wrong about the flag templates universally following the country article names - China links to People's Republic of China, DPRK links to North Korea. I'm sure there are other examples. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, the UPU should officially note the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the latter, at least, threads some of the same minefields as former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and both are the forms actually proclaimed by the countries concerned. When we use United States of America and so on, then we should choose between former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia by usage of the organization; when there is ambiguity with the Province, we should also do so. But not elsewhere; it is bad writing to follow former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia by Madagascar; the same tone would require Republic of Madagascar. We don't use official names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your examples support precisely what I'm advocating. We have Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which incidentally does not use the conventional short form, but we also have North Korea. We have China, but we also have {{CHN-PRC}}, China, People's Republic of China, {{PRC-main}}, Republic of China, Republic of China (Taiwan), and probably more if I bothered to look harder. Republic of Macedonia should be used in article space, with Macedonia reserved only for unambiguous templates where other naming conventions do not apply. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No they don't. We have disambiguation templates for the two Koreas and the two Chinas because there are two states using the same name. That is not the case for Macedonia. Note that Luxembourg is not disambiguated even though there's a province of the same name in another country. We only disambiguate where we need to - we don't do it for the sake of it, and especially not to meet POV objections. You still haven't explained why there's a need to disambiguate if there's no ambiguity in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Democratic People's Republic of Korea and North Korea = two different Koreas? China and People's Republic of China = two different Chinas? Perhaps you need to go outside and get some fresh air. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. If the Province of Macedonia were a nation-state under that name, and so eligible for the UPU, these would be parallel; but unless Kekrops is living in parallel universe, it isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How are these not a parallel? Why do North Korea and Communist China have two templates each? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Becayse both North and South Korea are states. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Space issues

Te proposal that the Republic be called Macedonia in templates only when there are space issues is absolutely unacceptable; although the implicit acknowledgement that space issues may justifiy the usage is interesting: if the ambiguity is tolerable when we are cramped for space, it cannot be utterly intolerable under other conditions.

But no. If there is no ambiguity, there is no reason not to call the Republic Macedonia - and the aame for the Province. If there is ambiguity, we should avoid both. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to receive an adequate answer to my question as to why the "even then" clause should be ignored, particularly given your admission that "what matters is the final appearance of the article". All I have seen so far are regurgitated arguments about the lack of ambiguity. The text of the guideline provides the answer to User:ChrisO's repeated demands for examples of ambiguity: even if the meaning is unquestionably clear, the first mention should be to "Republic of Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And what you're repeatedly ignoring is the end of the "Even then" clause - "some exceptions are discussed below". The very first exception to be discussed immediately below is the one applicable to this template: "In the case of templates linking only to articles on nation-states, where there is no possibility of the Republic of Macedonia being confused with the Greek region, the short form "Macedonia" may be used." In what way does this template not meet these criteria? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the part about the exceptions relates to the use of FYROM in articles about Greece and international organizations, and predates your template revolution. Go through the edit history. Your reading of the text makes the existence of the "even then" clause rather meaningless, don't you think? We've already established that "what matters is the final appearance". The fact that the piece of code that produces North Macedonia is technically a template shouldn't matter; it's its impact on article space that does. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop avoiding the question. In what way does this template not meet the criteria I just listed? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've explained it to you more times than I care to remember. User:Pmanderson seems to get it: "But if the transcluded template produces article text at variance with MOSMAC, the solution is simple: edit the article." It's a real shame that you still don't. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think we've reached the end of any useful discussion here, if you're not willing to give straight answers to simple questions. Time to go back to doing more useful things. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your template does not meet your own criteria because of the way it impacts on the final appearance of articles, in article (as opposed to template) space. Is that so difficult to understand? By the way, why are you trying to alter the intention of the guideline ex post facto? The "exceptions below" part was never intended to apply to your later addition regarding templates. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you have received an answer; please take your fingers out of your ears. The "even then" clause says normally, precisely because there are casess where it was never intended to apply. One appearance in a list of member states, the rest of whom are given common names, is a perfect example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No? "The term Republic of Macedonia, being the self-identifying name, is the established term that Wikipedia generally uses to refer to the country, as determined by the naming conflict guidelines. The country-level article is at Republic of Macedonia and all sub-level articles also use Republic of Macedonia, as do the related sub-level templates. This name should be used in all articles other than the exceptions set out below." Parallel universe, alright. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you at long last no sense of the ludicrous?

I see one of you has again reverted to

• Luxembourg
• Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
• Malaysia
• Mali

...

Do you have any idea how silly this looks?

It does show a touching faith in the power of conjuring; tell me, if you all shut your eyes and gabble "former Yuguslav" over and over, what do suppose will happen - and (outside the universe of The Golden Bough) how?

But one thing is already happening. You are making the Cause for which Byron and Capodistrias died into a laughingstock; most of the rest of us regret this. But we, the philhellenes, are the ones who are laughing, however painfully; no else knows, or cares. I have already read the novel, by a Byzantine military historian, which uses Fyromia as a running joke, and the butt is not the Republic of Macedonia. Please stop. 15:20, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe we care what you think of us? It isn't 1821 any more; we don't have to. Frankly, I'd say you were anything but a philhellene, but it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. As for the UPU, it can easily be moved to T, which is how the UN, the original source of the international name, alphabetizes it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a classicist; it's difficult for a classicist not to be a philhellene. If I were indeed anti-Greek, I would have supported, or left unanswered, all of the half-dozen attempts to call Tenedos Bozcaada; I opposed all of them. If you mean the English-speaking nations: there's an exxential first step to not caring what they think of you: Leave NATO. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You could be one of those typical "Western" classicists who think they are the only true heirs of ancient Greece, and that the modern Greeks are about as Greek as the "Macedonians" are Macedonian, even if they don't know that χώρα can also mean "country". I don't really care, to be perfectly honest. As for Tenedos, having it at Bozcaada hardly registers when you have Trebizond at Trabzon, Smyrna at İzmir and Constantinople at Istanbul. À propos, since when is NATO the property of the Anglosphere, whose influence, incidentally, is at its lowest ebb in living memory? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good God, no. I'm a classicist: I was actually educated, and not in the 1920s. I don't believe in the "blond Ancients" or their "beautiful Germanic souls". As for Trebizond, put in a move request, and we'll see what happens: it may split, since there is (unlike Tenedos) a substantial body of writing on the modern city. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But then again, none of you seem to realize that your tactics are also ludicrous: Avg has come to complain that a template no longer substitutes Republic of Macedonia. But are those who are handwriting replacemens for it restoring Republic of Macedonia"'. No. If the template was reverted, would they be replacing the templates? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ludicrous? What about this? Sorting FYROM under "M" is "silly" but doing precisely the same for "RoM" isn't? Do you not see the absurdity in what you're saying? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You propose to alphabetize the Republic of Macedonia under R?!? I must admit that that shows signs of a pawky wit, if intentional, but the edit before Chris moved the template had Republic of Macedonia under M, between Luxembourg and Mali (the article then had separate lists for governing and non-governing parties, and used templates in both. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm not too fussed, really. But decrying this while proposing this and reverting to this does inevitably evoke a whiff of this. See now why this was a bad idea? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use Macedonia where it is unambiguous and formal names are inappropriate. The wording produced by the old form of the template is distinctly second best, but nobody seems to have minded when it was spreading Republic of Macedonia all over the place; nobody who didn't should mind Republic of Macedonia now. So can I get back to doing something useful, like including Sophocles in Iole? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "nobody seems to have minded when it was spreading Republic of Macedonia all over the place; nobody who didn't should mind Republic of Macedonia now"? I'm a tad confused. If you mean Republic of Macedonia = North Macedonia, I must disagree. The former is the term established by consensus; the latter isn't. I may not like "RoM", and if I were a "nationalist vandal" as you so graciously aver, I would reject "Macedonia" altogether, but it is the established term here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly you are confused. The article said "Republic of Macedonia" before ChrisO meddled with the template, and I left it saying exactly that. Since you and Avg have been complaining that the template should be restored, you have no legitimaate beef with an edit which restores the same text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no beef with this. What I do have a beef with is this. Is consistency too much to ask for? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As for this edit summary, it is not true that saying Macedonia when unambiguous in articles which mention the Republic "specifically and exclusively in relationship" would forbid use of "former Yugoslav" everywhere in Wikipedia. We recommend its use when other countries are described with the same degree of formality and the organization uses it; we acknowledge that it may be helpful to use the phrase to clarify the dustinction with the Province.

If what Kekrops says were true, that would be a reason to stop using the phrase. (Why call the Republic that only in a handful of articles?) But it isn't.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Macedonia is clearly ineligible for membership in any international organization, and there are no such articles where other countries are referred to with their formal names. They don't have to be, because the organizations themselves are happy not to bother. FYROM is a special case because the international organizations to which it belongs have decided it is. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I won't participate in this discussion, I have to congratulate PMAnderson on his amazing opening post. I also salute his courage, brilliantly put on display in Messolongi(!), so let's recite, together: δρόμο να σχίσουν τα σπαθιά κι ελεύθεροι να μείνουν! I hear Solomos was a "barbaros" like old Alexandros, is there anything to it? 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC) PS: Nice kittens.

It was very entertaining, I'll give him that. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you; it is ill-repaid by this deliberate lie: Again, the sole purpose of this is to get rid of "FYROM" throughout the project. Macedonia clearly isn't eligible for membership in any international organizations This is false on three grounds.

• The change does not, of course, rule out the use of former Yugoslav. It can always be used to explain, and it should be used as a formality.
• This is largely because it is a change of wording, not a change of guidance; the reasons for the clause are in the archives; largely on the results of the Eurovision song contest, and none of them apply to bare membership lists.
• While the Province is ineligible for many international organizations, which is why this artificial disambiguation is so silly, it is certainly not impossible. Several organizations include regions within states; an article on such an organization should certainly disambiguate.
• Expunging fyROM is therefore neither the purpose nor the effect of the alterations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please produce one example of where fYRoM would continue to be sanctioned under your proposed new wording? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union. This deals solely with the relations of the Republic and the EU; and, since the Republic is not merely one item in a list of members, use of a formal name and explanation of the difference from the Province are both appropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That happens to be precisely the one I had in mind as the article which, though perhaps the most deserving of fYRoM, fails both your criteria. Macedonia, as part of Greece, has been in the EU since 1981, and is therefore ineligible for membership in its own right, and other such articles do not use the formal country names: Accession of Croatia to the European Union, Accession of Turkey to the European Union. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is about text, not merely titles. So, for example, Accession of Turkey to the European Union says "The modern Republic of Turkey is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire..." Likewise the article in question should explain the naming dispute between the "Province of Greece called Macedonia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or some such wording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole international organization clause was originally argued for such articles as Eurovision Song Contest 2008. If that article used, as it might well, Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Sweden, and so on, then former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia would be the proper corresponding term. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Federal Republic of Germany and Kingdom of Sweden at Eurovision? You're joking, right? And Macedonia is still ineligible to participate. Do you see now why your new wording is problematic? It creates even more confusion as to which articles qualify for fYRoM, as if there weren't enough already. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it avoids confusion. If you would use Federal Republic of Germany in the same context, use former Yugoslav Republic or Republic of Macedonia depending on the organization. If a reasonable reader would suspect the Province might be meant, do the same. Otherwise we are using a clumsy form to no purpose. (And is anybody going to answer JD2718's question, or shall I?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why not use Federal Republic? A bit pompous, but charming. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

But given that it isn't, and never will be, should the nomenclature used for other countries be a criterion at all? The EBU has already decided that no other country requires the degree of formality and disambiguation that the fYRoM does, which is why you see Germany, Sweden and Greece on your television screen (rather than Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Sweden and Hellenic Republic), but always FYR Macedonia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just disambiguate as necessary?

And edit MoSMac down to instructions on how to do so? Honestly, the region's Macedonia, the province is Macedonia, the country is Macedonia, why say more except where there might be confusion? Jd2718 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I can see, at this point, is that some editors will do anything to say former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (or, if possible, the cacophonous FYROM) as often as possible. "After all, it's the official name, as warranted by the UN, the EU, and other bodies which require unanimity." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why hasn't this proposed policy (the one on this project page) been rejected? It stands unchallenged, while it seems unwarranted. Jd2718 (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind it being rejected; it does not represent a meeting of the minds. But {{proposed}} also asserts that it is not consensus, and has no authority; there is no real chance that it ever will be. (Large parts of it, however, are good advice, and should be salvaged; that's the chief reason it's still proposed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Then what policy holds on those pages? Jd2718 (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME, WP:NPOV, WP:DAB and so on; the ones that hold anywhere else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This MOS does basically represent consensus. Regardless of whether it is an actual guideline or a proposed one, most users just follow this. The only users that I know who have a problem with it are the ones who want it to be "Fyrom" (the word, not the acronym) everywhere, and the ones who try so hard to see ambiguity and keep "Republic of..." when it's not necessary. But from what I've seen of the users who don't give a crap (the neutral majority), they call it "Republic of Macedonia" if they have to and "Macedonia" when they don't. BalkanFever 01:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I like what you describe, but I do not think it is reality on wikipedia today. For example (big and obvious at that) the Republic of Macedonia article pointlessly and annoyingly repeats "Republic of Macedonia" without using the short form. Skopje never uses the short form. I tried the regions, the municipalities, geography, politics, etc, etc. "Republic of Macedonia," "the country," "the Republic." You can look for yourself. Jd2718 (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was referring mainly to articles not specifically related to the country, like those ones about weapons that someone mentioned above, but thanks for pointing this out. I will fix it. BalkanFever 02:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just some clarification: isthis the kind of thing you guys are opposed to? BalkanFever 02:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Far less than that would be a problem, but yes, that was a problem. Jd2718 (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My position differs: This page was not written to require that, but some editors differ. We would be better off without this page: the proponents of that POV would then have to actually defend it as neutral. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This page has no hope of obtaining consensus. It is persistently abused by small gangs of nationalist edit-warriors, although it has no authority. These are the conditions under which it should be {{rejected}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying this guideline is complicating things, because instead of giving a practical reason to add "Republic of..." or even "former Yugoslav..." to an article like T-Mobile, someone like Avg just cites MOSMAC, even if there is no (or negligible) chance of ambiguity/confusion. BalkanFever 01:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a double edged sword. If there was no MOSMAC, then all Greek Macedonian articles have the liberty to refer to Greek Macedonia as Macedonia and to Greek Macedonians as Macedonians without any disambiguation. Right? --   Avg    11:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's clear who is meant; that was the original intent of this page. Confusion with citizens of the Republic or persons of Slav ethnicity living in Greece should of course be avoided, just as with the Republic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:USEENGLISH applies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so, and in English the standard convention is to refer to a country by its short geographical name rather than its long-form political one. Perhaps Avg could explain what the point is of adding "Republic of" before "Macedonia" in articles where only the country is being referred to? What exactly is being achieved by that? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia I guess? Are we really debating whether the reader should be left with the impression that Macedonia means by default Republic of Macedonia? So this is what is being achieved. One of the main purposes of an encyclopaedia is to clarify possible misconceptions. If people believe that Macedonia is the state and make this connection in their minds, then Wikipedia has the responsibility to clear this up. If "most" English speaking people as Fut. suggests believe so, then it's even more important to disambiguate. I really cannot believe I'm debating so obvious things.--   Avg    18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the implication?

English uses Macedonia for the Republic; it also uses Macedonia for the Province; for that matter, it uses Macedonia for the ancient kingdom, and has done so since the Renaissance. Doing any of these does not imply that the others do not exist; all three should be avoided when they may easily be misunderstood.

Macedonia in a list of modern countries is clearly the Republic; Macedonia in a list of Greek political subdivisions is clearly the province; Macedonia in Acts is the Roman province. Where's the problem? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

problematic discussion unrelated to article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That coming from the person who objected my page move from Macedonian diaspora to Ethnic Macedonian diaspora"? I think you better get your act right first. There is undoubtedly a Macedonian diaspora comprising of Greek Macedonians. So things are not that clear, are they?--   Avg    18:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC) And, I repeat, your move did not clarify them; that's what I objected to. If the inhabitants of the Province [here Macedonians would be ambiguous] have a diaspora of their own (as opposed to the Greek one) then they are an ethnicity; if so Ethnic Macedonian diaspora does not disambiguate, does it? But, personal attacks aside, where is the implication? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC) The "as opposed to the Greek one" part is the core of the problem. Your logic leads to the logical relationship Macedonian<>Greek. This is what should be avoided. Btw I still don't understand what part of my reply you considered a personal attack. The "get your act right" part? Doesn't this mean you don't practice what you preach? Because this is what you do.--   Avg    19:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Still inducing apoplexy in the hapless "philhellenes", I see? Χαρά στο κουράγιο σου, φιλαράκο. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC) On the contrary, it is Avg who claims there is a Greek Macedonian diaspora. One need merely hold the Greek inhabitants of the Province (and indeed of the Republic) are Greeks, and that (at least when they live outside the Balkans) they are part of the Greek diaspora, to dispell this phantasmagoria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Excuse me, did you just say that the existence of a Greek Macedonian diaspora is a matter of debate? --   Avg    20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC) No, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC) No, he's already made up his mind that there can be no such thing as a Greek Macedonian diaspora. Presumably because he believes that the Greeks who originate from Macedonia somehow forfeit their right to a Macedonian identity the moment they step foot south of Mount Olympus. Whereas the Slavs, on the other hand, can be "Macedonians" wherever they may happen to be, from the Balkans to Mars. According to User:ChrisO's very own WP:NCON: "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name." It appears this applies only to those groups deemed kosher enough by the frustrated "philhellenes", μὴ χέσῳ. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC) If you must put words in my mouth, please make them ones that I might possibly agree with; this is not what I said, and not what I think. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC) So tell us then why you think there is no Greek Macedonian diaspora, when there are Greek communities around the world that self-identify as Macedonian? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I have not said there was no Greek Macedonian diaspora. I do not think so. This entire line of conversation is have you stopped beating your wife? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC) "It's Avg who claims there is a Greek Macedonian diaspora". `Nuff said.--   Avg    04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Yeah, that and the insistence that there can only be one "Macedonian diaspora". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Enough indeed. The only remaining flicker of interest in the question is whether this quotation out of context shows that the two of you didn't bother to read to the end of the paragraph, or whether you did and are intentionally misrepresenting what I actually said: On the contrary, it is Avg who claims there is a Greek Macedonian diaspora. One need merely hold the Greek inhabitants of the Province (and indeed of the Republic) are Greeks, and that (at least when they live outside the Balkans) they are part of the Greek diaspora, to dispell this phantasmagoria. (bold added for the literacy-challenged, if that's the problem; the disingenuous are beyond the aid of typography.) If either of you develops literary interests beyond the dissemination of propaganda, do let us know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC) So fucking what if they are part of the Greek diaspora? How does that make them any less Macedonian? The Cypriots also belong to the Greek diaspora, but that doesn't stop them from having their own article. If you develop a philhellenic interest that doesn't entail the mechanical rejection of anything a Greek might say, let us know. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

so....

This is why I keep noticing random changes of a few words to t-mobile huh? --UltraMagnus (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are they former Yugoslav? then Yes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's Macedonia without the "Republic of" part. Changed it. Thanks for the notification.--   Avg    19:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A misunderstanding. We should link to the article on the Republic, Republic of Macedonia, but there is no point to changing the section header; no confusion is likely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not only confusion. We've been through that before.--   Avg    19:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The only other issue is the desire of nationalist editors (from both contending countries, although we have fewer editors from the Republic) to make gestures for their respective points of view. WP discourages this very strongly; the tendency to abuse this page to justify this sort of point-scoring is why it has never obtained consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up... I try to monitor articles that I have an interest in, but, damn it Jim, Im a geek not a politician! --UltraMagnus (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting tired PMAnderson. There has been a consensus to use RoM. Now you say we're the bad guys since we try to implement this. It's you who is abusing this MoS and in a very bad way.--   Avg    21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Only when it helps clarity or is necessary for disambiguation. There is no consensus for ethnic point-scoring. Fortunately the Greek nationalist faction is small, and the faction consisting of Macedonian Slavs is even smaller. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are in no position to proclaim this MoS "rejected". Please refrain from substituting the template, it is getting annoying and you're being counter-productive. --   Avg    00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, all of us are. It would require general consent to make this page accepted as a guideline, and you and ChrisO do not even agree what it means, still less that either meaning should be followed. If there is no hope of consensus for the page, it should be {{rejected}}; that's what the tag says. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit waring

I would like to ask, what is the current policy concerning use of the name Republic of Macedonia in non-Greece topics. Anon user continuously replacing Republic of Macedonia with FYROM in the Gazprom article. After I asked to look before editing WP:MOSMAC for guidelines, he responded by replacing again Republic of Macedonia with FYROM adding in edit summary "See UN site". I would like to avoid edit waring and therefore I would like to ask advice what is the correct way to handle this situation? As it is not technically WP:3R still, I posted it here and not in the Incidents notice board. Beagel (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"FYROM" is generally unacceptable and against a very clear consensus. Such edit-warriors should be treated as vandals. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

United Nations registered name

United Nations organization is not enough for you?? This little country is FORMALY REGISTERED in the UN as FYROM, this and ONLY this should be its name in any formal document for any use, for the moment. Maybe Wikipedia… this "free" and "intersubjective" online encyclopedia is above the United Nations… Does Mr. Soros paying your bills too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.130.65 (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I do. BalkanFever 07:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And, to add to this, BalkanFever is notoriously slow in paying our bills. Last time I billed him for a page move fix I performed, it took weeks until the money arrived. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because I wanted to get the amount just right (in order to avoid a block) but the exchange rate kept adjusting. You Europeans are so picky. BalkanFever 09:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you insisted on putting a non-recognised name of a country in the "description" field. You knew I'd get in trouble with my tax return if I'd accepted that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That must have been the local mail man, Mitko. Sometimes he will "describe" mail that he processes. He only knows three words in English, unfortunately. BalkanFever 09:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

A straw poll on the application of the name of the Republic of Macedonia/FYROM on the article Greece has started here. Advertisement on this talk page should be most relevant, as it should notify and attract all interested parties. Húsönd 19:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia Request for Comment

The Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)