Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Let's get the ball rolling...

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

The country that was known as "Republic of Macedonia" between 1992 and 2019 was renamed to "North Macedonia" in 2019, following the Prespa agreement with neighboring Greece that ended the long-standing Macedonia naming dispute. The term "Macedonia" was shared between the independent country, a neighboring historic region in Greece, and a wider geographic region that comprises both, together with smaller parts in Bulgaria and other neighboring coutnries. In light of the renaming, Wikipedia has adopted a new set of naming conventions, replacing those that were in place since 2009. The new conventions were the subject of an RfC held between February and March 2019.

1. The country will generally be called by its new name, North Macedonia, or the longer official form Republic of North Macedonia where appropriate.
2. In historical contexts referring to events before 2019, Wikipedia articles will continue to refer to the country by its then-current official name, i.e. "(Republic of) Macedonia". Where necessary, explanative notes such as "(now North Macedonia)" may be added to such references (e.g. Kiro Gligorov became the first president of the Republic of Macedonia (now North Macedonia), or: Kiro Gligorov was the first president of the newly independent country (then called Republic of Macedonia)).
3. The Macedonian language and the Macedonians as an ethnic group continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources.
4. The nationality of citizens of North Macedonia also continues to be called "Macedonian". This, too, is in line with the majority of reliable sources (while according to the Prespa agreement, in official documents this nationality will be described by the double formula "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia"). In particular, we will use "Macedonian" as the routine description of people's nationality in the lead sentences of biographical articles (XYZ is a Macedonian football player...). In contexts where ambiguity might be an issue, more explicit forms may be used (e.g. XYZ possesses both Australian and North Macedonian citizenship, or ethnic Macedonians who are not citizens of North Macedonia).
5. The use of adjectival forms to refer to the country ("Macedonian" or "North Macedonian") has been a matter of some contention and has so far been treated inconsistently in reliable sources, and the RfC has not led to a clear consensus for which of these to prefer. According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement, the adjectival form "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. Instead, plain "Macedonian" is to be used in some contexts, while in other contexts, both adjectives are to be avoided altogether in favor of the alternative of possessive constructions like "of North Macedonia". However, reliable sources have not consistently been following these rules.
   1. Accordingly, for most contexts, both "North Macedonian" and plain "Macedonian" can be used on Wikipedia in reference to the country (e.g. a North Macedonian company, or the Macedonian economy). In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue, especially on first introducing the topic, while the shorter form may be used where the topic of the country is already established in context, for example in subsequent references in articles that are about topics related to North Macedonia throughout.
   2. When referring to official state institutions of North Macedonia, the Prespa agreement stipulates that both adjectival forms should be avoided in favor of the possessive form ("of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia's"). Whenever we refer to such state institutions by their official names, we will of course respect the newly established forms of these names that follow this convention (e.g. Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia). However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural. While reliable sources continue to use both plain "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" in such contexts, the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian".

Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit: a small typo fix. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with your proposal except the section 5.2: somehow it gives the impression that the consensus reached on the RfC regarding state associations of the country can more or less be ignored and that the plain "Macedonian" may be used too. How can this be a basis for guideline if it nulls its purpose, which is to be clear on what the editors can use or not? The editors agree that Wikipedia is independent of any official documents, and that the official documents discouraging the use of the adjectival term "North Macedonian" have no effect on Wikipedia and cannot replace the project's rules and guidelines. Furthermore, the majority of the participants in the RfC chose the terms "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonian" when referring to the country's institutions and associations due to concerns about ambiguity. This needs to be mentioned in the guideline more clearly as to avoid the impression that the opposite can be possible too. Edit: also the term "fuller form" in the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian" is debatable, because "North Macedonian" isn't exactly the fuller form, but I can understand why the term "fuller" is used to describe it, as I too myself am unable to find a better description for it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the draft is mentioning that part of the RfC, is it not? However, it couldn't possibly present it as more than what it is, the majority opinion of the RfC participants, because that part of the RfC is the one that is most clearly inconsistent and not based in policy. The closers told us in the "adjective" section that we should go by reliable sources – but there is nothing in the reliable sources that supports that exception for the state entities. The sole reason why the state entities might have had a special rule was to accommodate the Prespa prescription (of avoiding adjectives). But the RfC also clearly resulted in that particular exception being rejected. Now we have an exception for state entities again, but it's a different one, and as such, neither based on the official prescriptions nor on the usage of reliable sources. Instead, it's based purely on the subjective preferences of a majority of RfC commenters. Yes, we can agree to abide by that preference, and I personally have no strong objections to doing so, but we can't really present it as if it was a logical outcome based on policy, when it quite clearly isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You are right. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the initiative! I'll need to it give more thought, but for starters, I think that we should amend 5.1. or add another subpoint. When reference is made to the people and their culture - "Macedonian" is to be used. This is in line with the housekeeping section that got an unanimous consensus and again amended in the 'other adjectival usage' section mid-RfC. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We can add this along with the Ethnicity and Language, it suffices. Like this: The Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there too, but I think that the adjectival usage section (5) needs to be updated to specify culture-topics adjectival usage which is to remain "Macedonian" ("Macedonian cuisine, paintings, film") etc. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that it's not necessary. Section (5) clearly refers to the country, while the language, the ethnic group and the culture are not exclusively bound to the country of North Macedonia. --Argean (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You do have a point here, however, some aspects of culture are national and more tied to the country, rather than ethnic. For example, "Macedonian television programs", "Macedonian films". Culture can not be reduced to folklore. I really think we should stress that in the adjectival section to avoid future conflicts. --FlavrSavr (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, but is such a special case covered by the RfC (or by your reliable-sources research)? I was under the impression the "adjectives" section was meant to cover everything not explicitly covered in the others? Introducing yet more domain-specific extra rules would be in need of some rather watertight arguments, wouldn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

We explicitely excluded culture mid-RfC, so I've stopped researching culture. I can safely say that "Macedonian film" is vastly more common than "North Macedonian film". In fact, if we did include those references in the research/repository, the entire section would have shown a preference towards "Macedonian" because it would have included "Macedonian food", "Macedonian film", "Macedonian books" etc. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

With a quick look I can say that this looks like a good job indeed. Future Perfect at Sunrise, thanks for making a considerable effort to transcend the dichotomies we have created with the binary options that we forced the participating editors to align with, and lead the closing panel to conclude that there is no substantial consensus (specifically in the Nationality and Adjectives sections). I wouldn't disagree with any of the statements and I believe that they are all in line with the rough consensus that emerged during this RfC. My only observation is that we may need to specify what ambiguity may stipulate the use of more explicit terms when referring to the nationality, since the only ambiguity that has been identified during the RfC and has been included in the closing statement is the potential ambiguity of the "Macedonian" nationality vs. the "Macedonian" ethnicity. --Argean (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Argean. Editors seem to have varying ideas of what "ambiguity" means. The closing statement mentioned a potential case of ambiguity where "North Macedonian" may be used but this supposed ambiguity can be easily solved by using „ethnic“ where "Macedonian" is used in an ethnic sense. By and large, "North Macedonian" is not used by WP:RS for the people for any purposes, contradicts several Wikipedia policies and should be avoided. I'm afraid that sticking religiously to that particular nationality vs. ethnicity sentence in the closure that is basically WP:OR on a no-consensus conclusion would necessitate a closure review request. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2. State entities is better than state institutions. Article names, categories and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether and use neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia" etc. Explanation: The same caveat should apply. Macedonian police should redirect to "Police of North Macedonia" or "Police in North Macedonia", but not to "North Macedonian police".

5.3. (this is new). Historical adjectival references to the state entities should remain "Macedonian". Explanation: This is in line with consensus on (2). It doesn't make sense to refer to the police in the 2001 insurgency as "North Macedonian police forces".

5.4. (this is new) Adjectival references to national culture should remain "Macedonian". Explanation: This is in line with the consensus on (3) and the question itself which "excludes any adjectival usage relating to aspects of culture and/or ethnicity."

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

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

I propose we reword the first paragraph like this:

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

I think this is more factual, concise and NPV.GStojanov (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@FlavrSavr: your additions (5.3 and 5.4) are abit problematic, I am afraid, and cannot be added as is to Future Perfect's proposed guideline without improvements and clarifications. First of all, your proposed section 5.3 lacks any explanative notes such as "(now North Macedonian Police)" which still exists today, but with a different new name, and the readers should know we are referring to it only in a historical context (e.g. The rioters clashed with forces of the Macedonian Police (now North Macedonian Police)). Because it is still a state-associated force, it cannot be excempted from being treated the same way as the state itself is, in historical contexts, when it comes to state-associated adjectives.

Second, your 5.4 proposal is abit ambiguous and may allow bad-faith editors and disruptors to use it to refer to state-associated cultural institutions (i.e. state-associated TV channels and programs and universities, which are part of national culture), to be referred by an adjective which does not reflect the new reality (i.e "of Macedonia" and "Macedonian" instead "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonian"). To avoid potential issues on this front, this needs to be reflected accordingly in the guideline. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree on both of your proposals, they seem to be perfectly logical. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'd disagree with the example of "(now North Macedonian police)", which strikes me as absurdly pedantic and unnecessary. I am assuming that we would use such expressions mostly in contexts where the country (before and after the name change) is already a well-eatablished discourse topic, so repeating the renaming disclaimer for every sub-topic that happens to be mentioned in the same context would be useless. Moreover, such additions would also often be semantically wrong. Let's say that in 1995, the president of Foobaristan met with his Macedonian colleague Kiro Gligorov. Expanding this to "Macedonian (now North Macedonian) president" would be simply wrong, because Kiro Gligorov is not now the president of North Macedonia, and never was. Let's face it, the addition of these "now..." tags is not an "obligation" we have to fulfill to respect some rule or else get "exemption" from; it's simply a service to the reader and we don't do these things in such an obsessive way, just as we wouldn't for other historic entities that got renamed at some point. In those cases where such additions are truly useful, we can leave it to editors' common sense to add them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@GStojanov: Actually Future Perfect's first paragraph is more informative and better than your proposed one. I can't see how such a lite paragraph can be more informative for the readers. It is not and if we want the guideline to inform the readers adequately, we should stick with Future Perf's version. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph states: "it was renamed". Who renamed it? Who has authority to rename a country. We should stick to the facts. GStojanov (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You got a point there, I guess. "...changed its name to Republic of North Macedonia, fulfilling an obligation..." works for me. You're right, we shouldn't present Prespa as if it, in and of itself, effected the name change – or indeed as if it in itself constituted the authority we wanted to follow. We do this renaming on Wikipedia because (a) common usage has changed, and that is because (b) the country decided on this change; Prespa itself is just background information to that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a) is true. Common usage did not change, at least not yet. It is simply too early for that. But b) is true, and the fact that I don't like that fact does not make it less of a fact. GStojanov (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think we are indeed making some progress here and I'm happy to see that there is a common understanding of the conclusions of the RfC.
@FlavrSavr: I have to agree with your proposals on 3, 4, 5.1 and 5.2, but I have some issues with 5.3 and 5.4.

• For 4 specifically I want to remind the proposal to make a page on People of North Macedonia or at least on Ethnic groups in North Macedonia, to address the multi-ethnic character of the country and clarify various issues on terminology. The issue of ambiguity has been brought up many by many editors and it cannot be covered completely by the article on Macedonians (ethnic group). Apart from that, I propose that the text should be changed to In contexts where ambiguity with Macedonian ethnicity might be an issue, more explicit forms or explanatory text may be used, and the use of adjectival forms may be avoided when possible (e.g. XYZ possesses both Australian and North Macedonian citizenship, citizens of North Macedonia who are of Albanian/Turkish/Bosniak ethnicity, or ethnic Macedonians who are not citizens of North Macedonia). The idea of adding some explanatory text when required comes from WP:UKNATIONALS, but we can skip if it looks unnecessary.
• On the other hand I rather agree with SilentResident that the additions on 5.3 and 5.4 need some further work. Actually I think that 5.3 should go under 2 with other historical contexts. Since the name of the country for historic references remains "Macedonia", the adjective is "Macedonian" too. And Fut.Perf. is right, the excessive use of "now..." is over-elaborated. After an initial reference to Macedonia (now North Macedonia) is being made in the text it doesn't need to be repeated. If the first reference in the text is an adjective it could be something along the lines of the then Macedonian Parliament.
• Finally, I honestly think that 5.4 is covered by language/ethnic group/culture. I think that the Government of North Macedonia knows already very well in what cases they need to change "Macedonian" to "National" (SilentResident explained it already), so using WP:RS will provide sufficient guidance. I remember reading somewhere that i.e. the names of Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts and Macedonian Radio Television will change to "National", but the Macedonian National Theatre will not change name because it represents part of ethnic Macedonian culture. That doesn't mean that we need to force the use of "North Macedonian" where not indicated, but that's already covered in state entities (or state and public entities, if we want to be accurate). That sounds like a fair approach to me. --Argean (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Argean: That sounds good. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

On your first point Argean, I do not oppose the creation of said article, although, I must admit, so far, outside the region and outside this RfC there isn't much controversy going on, and there aren't a lot of reliable sources that discuss the nationality issue directly. Those that do, are pretty blunt, like for example this sentence from Deutsche Welle: "Macedonians — and yes, that is the right word to use for their nationality". However, I think that this article shouldn't be a part of the naming convention: per Manual of style "Macedonian" would link to the "North Macedonia" country page. I support the addition of ethnic qualifiers when necessary, but introductory statements should be in this format X is a Macedonian Albanian, or a Macedonian of ethnic Albanian origin. This should be enough to avoid any ambiguity.

On your second point, I only added it as a separate 5.3 point because the format discusses names first and then adjectives. I wouldn't mind if an additional sentence is added to (2) Historical adjectival references that use "Macedonian" should follow the same logic. But I think it should be added, because I've seen instances where people just add "North" ignoring the historical context.

On your third point, perhaps I should have been more clear in 5.4.. I'm referring to cultural products and activities, and not to state institutions. Much of 20th century culture is not so much ethnic, but national in character, involving a lot of people & organizations. For example, it doesn't make sense to speak of "ethnic Macedonian films" or "ethnic Macedonian brutalist architecture" regardless of the institutions that regulate, fund or distribute these cultural products or activities. These are "Macedonian" as reported by a majority of reliable sources and voted by an unanimous consensus (twice). However, as in the case of 5.3. we can just add The Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources. Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic. --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@FlavrSavr: On the first point, I'm suggesting the creation of such an article not as part of the guideline, but as an additional measure to deal with the ambiguity question, that has been raised by so many editors. We have agreed that we will continue to use the term "Macedonian(s)" to describe the nationality, but currently there is no article on Macedonian nationals, or on People from North Macedonia or Ethnic groups in North Macedonia that are not ethnic Macedonians. At least an article for ethnic groups or minorities is necessary and it's rather strange not to have one currently, since we have similar articles for most European countries. Anyway, I'll leave it for now, because it's not part of the current discussion. As for the introductory statements, MOS:OPENPARABIO requires just one term for nationality (or location) and doesn't require to mention MOS:ETHNICITY, except if it is considered notable for that specific person. I don't expect to see issues of ambiguity in opening paragraphs and I think we have already clarified that the correct format should be Macedonian. If ethnicity is notable, which shouldn't be the rule, then indeed a Macedonian of Albanian ethnicity should be welcome as a format. I'm talking about cases where ambiguity might be an issue - i.e. when an article about e.g. Cedi Osman refers to his nationality/citizenship anywhere else apart from his MOS:OPENPARABIO. In these cases it's suggested to use explicit forms when ambiguity might become an issue, and imho adjectival forms maybe also be avoided when possible or not necessary. I don't know if there is a different opinion on that?

On the second point, I just don't see what is the need to add the historical use of adjectives together with the modern use, since there is already a section about historical references. People may want to add "North" everywhere, but let's keep all the historical uses together to make the guideline more coherent and simpler to follow. Historical references shouldn't be allowed the use of "North" in any possible form - this would be just a stupid revisionism.

On the third point, I might just be missing your point. I mean, I don't see culture, in general, as ethnic or national. Culture is strongly associated with people, and if people are called Macedonian(s) (ethnically or nationally, it doesn't matter), then their culture is also Macedonian, and of course this is not limited to folklore, but includes also modern literature, music, cinema, etc. I fail to see in what cases a reference to national culture might be made that is somehow distinct and create questions on ambiguity. I support the change and the addition of culture under section 3, exactly as you formulated it. --Argean (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There was a bit of a problem recently with a user trying to redirect links to the demonyms (such as Greeks or Germans) to articles about the demographics articles (such as Demographics of Greece and Demographics of Germany). There is some disagreement about how much a demonym should be considered to be limited to the original ethnic group vs all citizens of the country. This will need sorting out and the distinction for this country is even more tricky. For my own part, I would say that articles on the demonym should be of the format "Foobarians are historically an ethnic group that blah-blah-blah. Since the establishment of the Socialist Democratic Federated Republic of Foobaria, the term may be extended to all residents of that state." --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the article on minority groups that you are looking for is Demographics of North Macedonia. --Khajidha (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I remember the incident very well Khajidha. There was even an RfC because that user decided to change all redirects unilaterally causing disruption. Well eventually the user was banned because he/she was evading a topic ban on Macedonia-related articles... - actually this whole issue started from the North Macedonia talk page and escalated because the user wanted to prove a WP:POINT.

Anyway, the issue is indeed complicated and many articles on ethnic groups have problems, because the boundaries between ethnic groups and nations are quite blurred in many cases, especially when referring to modern European nations. For example French and Swiss people are civic nations where the background ethnicity is not important, while Russians have two different names in their language to distinguish ethnicity to citizenship. The issue is even more complicated for Macedonians because they are a nation that was created more recently (mostly during the first part of 20th century), compared to other European nations that went through their modern ethnogenesis mostly during 18th-19th century. Now the issue here is that the state that represents that nation has changed name which is not i.e. a change from an exonym to an endonym, (such as Swaziland to Eswatini), and as a result that new name of the state doesn't represent a continuation of the historic development of the nation (and rightfully we are not changing the name of the people with this RfC). To make things even more complicated (and I think this is the point where the potential ambiguity stems from) the constitution of the state recognizes that it represents the Macedonian people and part of the Albanian people, the Turkish people, the Vlach people, the Serbian people, the Romany people, the Bosniak people and others, the latter being all the officially recognized minorities. So why not make an article about all these minorities that are clustered under the national concept of Macedonians, instead of having just a short paragraph in Demographics of North Macedonia, without even having a redirect from Ethnic groups in North Macedonia, similar to Ethnic groups in Montenegro?.

To conclude, this is a long and complicated discussion, but I guess this is not the right place and time to hold it, so apologies for the long and rather irrelevant post. --Argean (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

PS: I don't even want to mention demonyms, which is a recently invented linguistic construct with next to zero semiological background - as opposed to ethnonyms that are actually significant part of the complex process of ethnogenesis, but anyway. --Argean (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Well Argean, we seem to agree on all points. I'm not sure if we need the 'historical use of adjectives' addition: while you and me might agree that it is indeed stupid revisionism to add "North Macedonian" for historical events, other, less-good faith editors might not. One cannot be too careful with (North) Macedonia related articles. :) However, I'll let Future Perfect at Sunrise be the judge of that. Hope he implements the suggestions soon so that we finally have a policy. Cheers. --FlavrSavr (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@FlavrSavr: I'm glad to see for once more that we are able to be in agreement as part of a constructive process and not just as a simple step-back compromise.
I'm wondering what the next step of the process has to be? Future Perfect at Sunrise any ideas? --Argean (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

We need a new section: "Nation and nationality"

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

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

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

"International organizations" can remain as is.

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

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

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

I am not introducing a new structure. I am following the structure of the current Naming Convention page.GStojanov (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It is new to this discussion. Future Perfect has proposed a format. We are discussing how best to phrase things in it, what to add to it and what to remove from it. Your proposal is in an entirely different format. We need to focus on the proposal before us unless and until it can be shown to be inadequate. THEN we can look at other formats. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Future Perfect's use of "still" relates current usage to previous usage, my use of "are to be referred to" is more focused on the present and future. --Khajidha (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support (conditional) of what is obviously a well thought compromise between the relative strength of the positions in the RfC and relevant Wikipedia policies. The only two 'conditions' for my support is (1) the addition of culture and its adjective derivatives as worded in the above discussion with Argean - as widely uncontested (it's in the housekeeping section + it were specifically excluded mid RfC) and (2) further specifying that for article titles, categories, templates etc. we will prefer the non-adjectival use. Of course, Argean's further specifying of the nationality cases would be a welcome addition. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The only thing that changed is the official name. The common name or adjective did not change as evidenced by reliable sources and search engine trending.GStojanov (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. @BD2412, QEDK, and Neutrality: Pinging RFC closing panel for feedback. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Firstly, I think a good progress has been made here. As a closer, we generally resist making comments other than clarifications, as it might be construed as extension of our closes (and thus, noted consensus). But, making policy is hard, and I think the guideline that Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) has distilled the RfC into is a good start. The procedure to go about it is to have the current NCMAC marked as "historical" (moved to a subpage of newer guideline for preservation of page history) and have it superseded by the new consensus - noting that status quo applies if there's no change and until and unless the consensus is invalid (although a quick glance tells me there's not much besides core naming), for example:

• Republic of Macedonia will be the article about the country. (superseded by new consensus)
• Macedonia will be a disambiguation page. (supported by consensus)
• Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or any of its abbreviations will otherwise not be used. (grandfathered in)

Coming back to this guideline itself, it does not need Prespa agreement as any kind of reasoning (it can probably be referenced in a hatnote) considering Prespa is an official agreement with no bearing on to policy itself, the guideline should focus on only the consensus. The guideline is formed simply because the consensus exists for it to exist. So, a statement like According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement, the adjectival form "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. Instead, plain "Macedonian" is to be used in some contexts, while in other contexts, both adjectives are to be avoided altogether in favor of the alternative of possessive constructions like "of North Macedonia". However, reliable sources have not consistently been following these rules can be added to a footnote, as it is not the consensus of the RfC itself but an useful addendum. Aternatively, this can also be a part of an explanatory supplement to the guideline in place. Accordingly, for most contexts, both "North Macedonian" and plain "Macedonian" can be used on Wikipedia in reference to the country needs to be summarized as a product of no consensus emerging in the RfC, and why the default MOS (such as MOS:ALTNAME) applies. What I've quoted are small parts of the guideline but they apply to it as whole and again, I think this is a definitive good head start into arriving at an implementable policy in the area. Kudos to everyone working on it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually the RfC itself begins with the sentence Due to the Prespa agreement, the Republic of Macedonia has been renamed to the Republic of North Macedonia, so I don't think that Future Perfect at Sunrise's proposed wording deviates in any way from the logic of the RfC or the consensus following from it: it just states a major historical fact and summarizes WP's community consensus around it. I think it's most useful in the way that it is right now, and I don't think it should be reduced to a footnote. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The necessitating cause of the RfC is not its consensus. I do not think FPAS' wording deviates from the spirit of the RfC either but simply that it is not required, the consensus does not exist at the behest of the agreement, the current wording just makes it sound like it is. To summarize, although Prespa agreement precipitated the change, that is not the reasoning of the consensus. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea of footnotes: It is important to not give the readers the false impression in the slightest that the Prespa Agreement dictates Wikipedia's guidelines or affected Consensus (the Consensus was determined by the valid arguments in line with Wikipedia's policies anyways, not on Prespa Agreement) but provide the necessary explanations where needed. To keep the new guideline as concise and compact as possible, I wouldn't mind if this information is reduced into footnotes acting as explanatory supplements. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence itself should be reworded to reduce any possible false impression about Wikipedia being somehow obligated to the Prespa agreement? Why footnotes? --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@FlavrSavr, SilentResident, and QEDK: I took your conversation from here and ran with it. Your thoughts would be appreciated below. :) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on draft guidelines

• User:MJL/Manual of Style/North Macedonia-related articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to get everyone's feedback on my take on Fut.Perf.'s proposed guidelines. I combined it with the pre-existing guidelines over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) and made the whole thing into apart of Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional).

We might want to include one more heading for the remaining points of the closing panel's statements, but I do like how it turned out for the most part. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Please include culture as discussed above with Argean and SilentResident: The Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be called like that, in line both with the Prespa agreement and with the large majority of reliable sources. Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic.. Again, culture was specifically voted to be "Macedonian" in the non-contentious housekeeping section and the adjectival references to culture where excluded from the question mid-RfC because of this. Also, please add Article names, categories and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether and use neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia" etc. in the "Adjectival form of North Macedonia". This is also non-contentious, I believe. --FlavrSavr (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I second to add Macedonian culture, for example: "The Macedonian folk song Зајко Кокорајко". I also second to add the preference for neutral formulations (nouns and pronouns) over adjectival references. We should use adjectival references only where absolutely linguistically necessary. GStojanov (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@FlavrSavr and GStojanov:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Just please add Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic. and another example Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film etc.. This is to avoid any further ethnic/national culture discussions that might occur (a film is part of Macedonian culture, but a film can not be an ethnic Macedonian film). --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Some comments:

• I'm not convinced we should retain the list of "contexts that it is typically unambiguous" (i.e. "Lists and enumerations of countries" and so on) and repurpose it for the difference between "North Macedonia" and "Republic of North Macedonia". This leads to too narrow a range for plain "North Macedonia". This list of contexts was designed to deal with the issue that plain "Macedonia" was felt to be too ambiguous vis-a-vis Greek Macedonia. But that's no longer an issue now, because "North Macedonia" is never ambiguous. The choice between plain "North Macedonia" and "Republic of" should be conditioned purely by level of formality. That is: use "Republic of North Macedonia" in just those contexts where you'd also use "Russian Federation" rather than plain "Russia", or "Federal Republic of Germany" rather than plain "Germany". In all other contexts, plain "North Macedonia" is unproblematic.
• For similar reasons, I don't see a reason to retain and repurpose that section about "Greece-related articles". There will no longer be any demand for special treatment of Greece-related articles, so there's no need to specifically point out that there won't be any. The only use I could see of such a section would be in the context of the "historical" pre-2019 uses, i.e. pointing out that if we didn't do exceptions back then, we're not going to start making any now.
• I think that in the "Adjectival" section, the statement about state entities, "When referring to official state institutions of North Macedonia, both adjectival forms should be avoided in favor of the possessive form" does not match the outcome of the RfC. The closing statement was quite clear that the consensus was that adjectives can in fact be used. In my draft, I tried to make it quite clear that this statement was merely what the Prespa agreement stipulates, stated purely as background information to explain why there's a special issue and to point out that we are cosciously and deliberately diverging from these rules. (The following clarification that we will follow the official names when using official names is in fact a no-brainer and hardly necessary.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Damn, Future perfect is absolutely correct on all these 3 points raised above. These need to be taken in consideration, otherwise I can sense that problems may arise with the guideline in the future, and people will start wondering why the Guideline isn't in line with the RfC's outcome.

Dear MJL, I would appreciate if all the above points and concerns are addressed. Thank you very much. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he is. :) Maybe we should leave the original wording and add a footnote that Wikipedia is not obligated to follow the provisions of Prespa agreement and explain that this is only background information? --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Original wording plus footnotes added? I wouldn't say no but I am not exactly sure how you meant it. I would appreciate if can you share with us a draft, (perhaps below my commnet, here in this discussion?) your proposal? Much appreciated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Like so, SilentResident: According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement[1], the adjectival...... => footnote goes in the bottom section: {{This is a background information only, Wikipedia is by no legal or other means obligated to follow the provisions of the Prespa agreement }}or something to that effect. I know it's cumbersome but it's better than having entire paragraphs of actual policy demoted into a footnote. Or as Argean proposed, make some minor rewording just to reduce the impression of a legal obligation (I'm lacking creative ideas on how to actually reword it.) --FlavrSavr (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreement, which is a bilateral agreement, and we are not obligated to follow, we can refer to the UN and EU style guidelines for the English language editors. These style guidelines are far more relevant for us. So I propose we change the beginning of the second paragraph from the "Adjectival form of North Macedonia" section from: "According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement," to "According to UN[1] and EU[2] style guidelines for the English language editors" We can add a footnote at the end of the sentence that summarizes the guideline: GStojanov (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

References

We are not obligated to follow UN and EU guidelines either. I'm not sure about footnotes tbh, since I don't like them in general. If something seems to require a footnote to be explained, maybe it just needs some simple rewording/reformatting. Why don't we simply include all background information of the adjectives section in just one paragraph? --Argean (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. What I know is that I don't remember having seen any use of footnotes in Wikipedia's guidelines before. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment Some word-smiting: the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Background section should read: "On Feb 12th 2019 Republic of Macedonia changed its name to Republic of North Macedonia, fulfilling an obligation from the Prespa agreement that ended the Macedonia naming dispute." This is more accurate, factual and NPV. Starting a paragraph with "Then...", using "renamed itself" are problematic stylistically. GStojanov (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"fulfilling an obligation from the Prespa agreement" Nope, it feels as if it implies that the Prespa Agreement was imposed on the Republic of Macedonia, which isn't the case, since the Treaty is the result of mutual concessions from both sides. If a different wording is chosen, I wouldn't mind then. To clarify myself: while the provisions of the Prespa Agreement contain obligations for both sides, there is a popular narrative in both countries, especially on nationalist circles, that give the term "obligation" a negative spotlight, which is too POV, depending how one views it. Thats why I don't feel this word to be the most appropriate. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, maybe we can say "as a result of" instead of "fulfilling an obligation from"? "On Feb 12th 2019 Republic of Macedonia changed its name to Republic of North Macedonia, as a result of the Prespa agreement that ended the Macedonia naming dispute." GStojanov (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what is wrong with the original following the Prespa agreement? Simple, neutral and descriptive enough, while presenting the facts in a temporal relation and avoiding any reference to causality that might create controversies... --Argean (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok let's go with "following the Prespa agreement". I will add a section below with the actual edit for MJL. GStojanov (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I changed it because qedk didn't like that exact phrasing. I'd be happy to add it back. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment @MJL: In general I like the idea of formatting the guideline in a way consistent to the previous one, as well as having a similar style to other regional MoS, but I have to admit that there are a few issues that need some fixing. Some of them have been already been mentioned by Fut.Perf. above, and I just want to say that I agree with all of them. A few more things that I would like to add, keeping in mind the discussions so far:

• I'm not sure why nationality is listed under Language, identity, and culture. The RfC has dealt with those two issues separately and the rationale that lead to the current consensus is completely different, so it just feels awkward to cluster them together. I think that it should rather be a separate section. By the way, I don't know why the background sentence This, too, is in line with the majority of reliable sources (while according to the Prespa agreement, in official documents this nationality will be described by the double formula "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia") has been lost in the new text. I think it's useful and explains as well why the issue of nationality is actually contentious.
• Furthermore, I want to repeat my proposal that we need to specify the ambiguity in the nationality section, as discussed with FlavrSavr and SilentResident above. It's pretty much clear to all of us that the ambiguity refers to the "nationality" vs. "ethnicity" question. It has been repeated by many editors during the RfC and is explicitly stated in the closing comments, therefore I believe it should be also mentioned in the actual guideline. Additionally I have proposed to change the phrase to In contexts where ambiguity with Macedonian ethnicity might be an issue, more explicit forms or explanatory text may be used, and the use of adjectival forms may be avoided when possible. The rationale behind this proposal is that since we are already suggesting to the editors to avoid all other adjectives when not necessary, why not do the same for nationality as well, since the dichotomy between "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" has created so heated discussions and lead to lack of consensus. Just repeating myself to avoid misunderstandings, this exception should be limited only to cases where ambiguity with ethnicity might be an issue and shouldn't affect introductory sentences to persons' biographies.
• The Adjectival form of North Macedonia section needs some reformatting imho. For example we should give all background information in the beginning of the section to make it easier to read. Also it feels very strange to have a section about adjectives and read three times within the text that adjectival forms should be avoided in one way or another. I mean, it should be easier to give a guideline on when to avoid adjectives, i.e. try to avoid them completely in article names, categories, and templates and don't change the official names of ranks and institutions except if simple grammar rules of English language require it. That should suffice.
• Finally, I don't know what happened with FlavrSavr's proposal to add a sentence about the historical use of adjectives. I initially suggested that all historic uses should be grouped together for reasons of convenience, but since we are not making a relevant section, shouldn't we add a sentence about the use of adjectives in historic context as well?

Argean (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

On your last point, I suggest the same sentence that should be added about the Macedonian ethnicity, language, culture etc. After the historical context sentence this should be added Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic. --FlavrSavr (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Upon re-reading the updated guideline by MJL I'm thinking it's better to leave out the use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possible in the nationality section (4.2). First of all, the use od adjectives will be pretty much covered by the additions for culture, historical, state-entities and other entities. Second, the adjectival forms that relate to nationality, namely "Macedonian / North Macedonian" are identical to the nouns so I don't see how this helps. I think this can create a lot of problems, seeing how widely this ethnicity/nationality confusion is misinterpreted. I don't think that there are a lot of cases that refer to nationality adjectivally, except "Macedonian / North Macedonian citizenship", "Macedonian nationals" etc. As it is, it might actually create the impression that you can't say, for example "Ezgjan Alioski is a Macedonian footballer", because you would use "Macedonian" an adjective. This undermines the entire policy, so it's better left out. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Argean and MJL:. --FlavrSavr (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all @MJL: many thanks for your hard work trying to follow all the discussions on this page.

@FlavrSavr: I see your point about removing the rule to avoid adjectival references to nationality in case of ambiguity, and I understand your concern. The truth is that I'm trying to think of a way to reduce possible disputes in cases that the use of "Macedonian" may be considered ambiguous to whether is referring to nationality or ethnicity. These cases shouldn't be many in the first place, since references such as "a Macedonian national" or "Macedonian citizenship" cannot be considered ambiguous, because they obviously refer to nationality and not to ethnicity. Actually I can't think of any good examples off the top of my head, but we somehow need to depict the current consensus which requires to create a rule for cases when such ambiguity occurs. I'm thinking that in these cases the use of the phrase "a(n) XYZ from North Macedonia" might be less controversial compared to the use of "Macedonian XYZ" or "North Macedonian XYZ". And I think that we make it already clear that introductory statements to biographies should follow the rule "Macedonian" is used for the routine description of people's nationality in the lead sentences of biographical articles, so the rule to avoid such adjectival references shouldn't affect the opening paragraphs. I don't know, does anyone have any other ideas about this? --Argean (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I really can't think of a good idea... The disambiguation you're referring should probably be done with more examples, like we did in the culture section. For the time being, I kindly request for that particular sentence (use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possible) in the nationality section (4.2) to be removed from the draft guideline. --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I won't insist on keeping the sentence, but we definitely need to work on this paragraph, and maybe give more examples indeed. The way I read the whole nationality section is: when referring to people's nationality use Macedonian and when there is ambiguity use other forms, examples North Macedonian or ethnic Macedonian. This incorporates the statement of the closing panel on current consensus which is "North Macedonian(s)" may be used in particular cases where necessary to avoid ambiguity or confusion, for example, in articles or sections of articles that discuss both Macedonians as a nationality and Macedonians as an ethnicity and respects the policies on disambiguation. I'm still worried though that we are leaving the door wide open for potential disputes over the use of North Macedonian vs. Macedonian on the grounds of ambiguity. We really need to find a way to either overcome this binary dilemma in such cases (thus I proposed the avoidance of adjectives over e.g. forming the possessive when possible) or create a more solid policy with more examples on how to deal with disambiguation. --Argean (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Argean: I'm doing what I love which is helping out, so it's worth all the personal confusion. As for the nationality v. ethnicity adjectives, thing... We can use Julia Batino as an example. As someone who is ethnically jewish but is a Macedonian national, how should one go about describing her? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Well I just want to say that your effort is really appreciated. :)
Back to the disambiguation issue, I used a similar example in an earlier discussion: Cedi Osman is ethnically Turkish and Bosniak, was born in the Republic of Macedonia, and holds dual nationality: Turkish and Macedonian. It's not easy to find the right adjectives in these cases, is it? One might say that it would be fine to use the term Macedonian for these people as well, and actually this has been my position from the start of the RfC. But I can't ignore the fact that there is an emerging consensus that ambiguity might be an issue in some cases and this has to be addressed somehow, but I'm just struggling to find which the right way should be... --Argean (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Argean:I feel like I this should just be posted to the top of this page, and we all call it a day lmao. I will unhelpfully point out that WP:IAR is a thing. We could just tack on to the end of Section 4.2 (paragraph two): In these cases, it is advised to use common sense and stay consistent with the phrasing set out by a majority of reliable sources describing the subject.
Per the closing statement: Adjective... The closing panel finds no consensus to mandate the use of one adjective or the other at all times and in all places. Rather, the closing panel finds that the consensus, based on policy, is to follow the usage of the reliable sources with respect to the specific topic at issue. The usage of the reliable sources will often be dependent on context and common sense (for example, whether there is any meaningful risk of confusion or ambiguity exists in the specific context).
How does that work for you? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Working on this. For the future, if people can speak in terms of:
  

Under section 3, strike: For example, "The Macedonian folk song Зајко Кокорајко..." is viewed as the acceptable phrasing.. In its place, add: For example, Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film etc..

I want to fix all the language, but I am currently spending most of my time trying to figure out what people are saying needs to be removed and where things should exactly be added. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we haven't really been helpful, have we? :) Thanks for the initiative and the tip, I'll structure my proposals (those that have more or less been uncontested) in that format. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Support on content, some minor nitpicking on style. First of all, great job, MJL! If we used your draft as is, we’d be well off. (There are a couple of typo/punctuation issues which will soon be fixed, I’m sure.) My only recommendation would be emphasize what over why. Consider the guideline’s intended audience: Who is this for? Wikipedia nerds elbow-deep in policy or “regular” editors simply looking for guidance on terminology? If the latter, I would recommend putting ALL mentions of previous guidelines, RfCs (perhaps even the term “RfC” itself), “Macedonia 2”, and the Prespa agreement in a short Background section at the end of the guideline. In short:

1. Move the Background section to the very end of the guideline.
2. Excise all mentions of Prespa from all other sections.
3. Add something like This guideline was informed by the changes agreed upon by Greece and now-North Macedonia in the Prespa Agreement. to the Background section.

After all we’ve been through, this may seem radical, but, again, consider the audience and the purpose of the guideline. Editors mostly want and need to know what to do. Why might be interesting to some, but it’s not really material. —ThorstenNY (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• @FlavrSavr, Argean, GStojanov, SilentResident, and Future Perfect at Sunrise: (Pinged users who have commented in this thread) Yes or no to this proposal by ThorstenNY? Also, thank you everyone for the support so far! Here is a link to all the changes that have been made for your convenience. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In first glance it looks good, will need check it more carefully when back to my PC. Thanks alot for your patience, MJL. And sorry if we dazzled you with all these discussions. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Considering how difficult is get to actual content changes in the myriad of discussions, I'd really welcome the style discussions after we've established the essentials of the guideline. After few months of disscusions I'd seems that we're really really close on reaching an agreed version of the contents to get focused on style just yet. Other than that, ThorstenNY's proposal seems fine. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Leave them as they are for now. We'll think about reformatting once we have all the content edited and agreed upon.GStojanov (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

These two things are viewed as not contentious, MJL, please update accordingly:

Under section 3.2, strike: Where necessary, explanatory notes such as "(now North Macedonia)" may be added to such references (e.g. Kiro Gligorov became the first president of the Republic of Macedonia (now North Macedonia), or: Kiro Gligorov was the first president of the newly independent country (then called Republic of Macedonia)).. In its place, add: Where necessary, explanatory notes such as "(now North Macedonia)" may be added to such references (e.g. Kiro Gligorov became the first president of the Republic of Macedonia (now North Macedonia), or: Kiro Gligorov was the first president of the newly independent country (then called Republic of Macedonia)). Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic. .

Under section 4.1, strike: For example, "The Macedonian folk song Зајко Кокорајко..." is viewed as the acceptable phrasing. . In its place, add: For example, Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film etc. is viewed as the acceptable phrasing. Adjectival references for these topics should follow the same logic. .

--FlavrSavr (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't think the "same logic" for adjectival references is that simple (see my objection from 18 April somewhere above, about the proposed "Macedonian police" example). And for section 4.1, a special addition for "adjectival references for these topics" is quite unnecessary, because these references are always adjectival. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right - on 3.2. your main objection was to avoid overwhelming pedantic use of "now North Macedonian" or similar formulations especially when these don't make any sense - Kiro Gligorov never was a "North Macedonian" president. However, I really think that we should stress that the adjective use for historical context is "Macedonian". I've seen a lot of cases where "North Macedonian" is used for events and institutions in the past. So the question is: how do we rephrase this to discourage revisionism? I think the most obvious solution would be to say that Historical adjectival references to the state entities should remain "Macedonian". Where the context isn't clearly historical, explanative notes such as ("now North Macedonian") may be added.. Hope this works for all? You have a point for 4.2. Just adding "Macedonian film" should do the trick. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

But is it practical to make the same point over and over again? Perhaps it would be easier to phrase (and easier to use for editors) to make one additional organizational change — and group everything under two overarching sections, one for references past-2019 (which should contain almost everything we have now, i.e., subsections for country, people, state entities, adjectival use) and another very short one that say something like Always use Macedonia and Macedonian to refer to the country, its people, institutions and events before 2019. Only when absolutely necessary to remove ambiguity you may add a clarifying parenthetical remark that the topic is related to the current country of North Macedonia as opposed to the wider or Greek region, e.g. —ThorstenNY (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This sentence also makes sense. I'm not sure about the re-organizing, though, as I've stated before, I think that we should agree on the essential details and then consider the most economical or logical style to present them. I'm really fearful that by introducing big style changes right now we could potentially lose carefully crafted compromises between the consensus, the policies and practical solutions that took months to achieve. I'm really not bold in that direction. :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A valid concern. I’d be fine with fixing any remaining content and language issues using the current organization and once that’s finished, take the result and move things around on a separate page (in my user space, perhaps) so we can see if this makes a difference in clarity and/or ease of use. —ThorstenNY (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I would avoid style changes if possible. I have learned this from my experience here (which has been short); bad language that is familiar is preferable to new language without consensus. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done w/ modified language. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MJL! But this sentence Historical adjectival references to the state entities should remain "Macedonian". Where the context isn't clearly historical, explanatory notes such as ("now North Macedonian") may be added. is in the wrong section. It should be in 3.2 ('Article text') right after the Kiro Gligorov sentences. --FlavrSavr (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@FlavrSavr: Here or here? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit (We have discussed this above and agreed on this) Under section 1 Background strike: Then in 2019, the country of the "Republic of Macedonia" renamed itself to "North Macedonia" following the Prespa agreement with neighboring Greece, and this in its place add: On Feb 12th 2019 Republic of Macedonia changed its name to Republic of North Macedonia following the Prespa agreement that GStojanov (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I still see the old version. GStojanov (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit Under section 1 Bacground paragraph one strike: . This version of the guideline was in place in its place add: , who were named as referees by the Arbitration Committee.[1] This is an edit from the original page. I guess something went wrong when you copied it. The paragraph should remain as is. GStojanov (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit Under section 1 Bacground paragraph two strike: and replace the ones in previously place since 2009 . in its place add: and amend the ones previously in place since 2009 Also add "by" at the end of this paragraph, so it reads: was ultimately closed by BD2412, QEDK, and Neutrality. GStojanov (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit Under section 3.2 strike: The country will generally be called by its new name, North Macedonia, or the longer and official term, Republic of North Macedonia, where appropriate (ie. when one might use the term Russian Federation vs Russia or United Republic of Tanzania instead of Tanzania). in its place add: The country will be referred to by its short name North Macedonia. The official name Republic of North Macedonia will be used in all contexts where other countries would also be called by their full official names (e.g. "Russian Federation", "Federal Republic of Germany", etc.) This is much closer to the text that is in the current Naming convention. We don't need to deviate from it without a good reason. GStojanov (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I find all proposals by GStojanov to be fitting much better for a guideline, with a more encyclopedic wording. Thanks GStojanov! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. We are close now. The contents is mostly there, we need to do some word-smiting. GStojanov (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@GStojanov: I slightly modified the last request. While I agree that we should keep as true to the original naming convention as possible, I think having two examples that are European countries is a bit much. People reading this policy are from all over the world, so it will be nice to mention a country outside the continent. Hence, I kept the Tanzania example in, but still in the format of the language you suggested. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That works. Non euro-centric is good. GStojanov (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit In the very first sentence: "This is a guideline on how to..." strike the new name: "...name, North Macedonia, whose...". In this historical context the new name is not needed and it reads awkward. The sentence works better without it. GStojanov (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done good call! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit Under section 3.2 strike: The term, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or any of its abbreviations should generally be avoided. in its place add: The temporary reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or any of its abbreviations and acronyms will not be used.. I updated the request to reflect the consensus from the conversation below. GStojanov (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with that one. This might lead people to believe that the fYRoM formula is generally acceptable as long as it is used "in historical context". This will compete with "In historical contexts referring to events between 1992 and 2019 ... (Republic of) Macedonia". I have already seen (and reverted) the fYRoM formula from articles where it had been placed as a "historical name" after the name change. --T*U (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have the same concern. But I think we need to provide for uses where we talk about the membership in UN, the naming dispute, etc... I am open for a suggestion for a different wording. I am also open to completely remove the ", except in historic context." GStojanov (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

If we add "generally" (as in "will generally not be used"), we could easily remove the ", except ...". The alternative is to say ", except in cases relating to the historical naming dispute" or similar. --T*U (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The solution here is to keep in mind the Use-mention distinction. We will essentially never use this term, not even in those historical contexts. But, of course, we will mention it, where relevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was struggling with. Perfect. Thank you Fut.Perf. Then we can remove the exception. We will not use it, but we will mention it when necessary. GStojanov (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@GStojanov:  Done no clue what purpose this changed served tbh except to add more unnecessary words (just changing should to will would have had the same effect), but I don't see this as worth objecting to. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I am going rouge and just doing my one-word change instead. It's easier (at least for me) to understand. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Of all topics in this guide, this is the one we all agree upon. We have retired the ugly reference in 2009 for the most part, but now we are putting it six feet under for good. And we have to do it right. We can use the more generic "term" instead of "temporary reference" if that bothered you MJL, but we need to cite it correctly "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (with all its wired capitalization). We also need to say "will not be used.", instead of the more permissive: "will generally be avoided." We don't want it to turn into a vampire and visit us at night. And even rouge editors are not immune to vampires. So here is a compromise phrasing: The term "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or any of its abbreviations and acronyms will not be used. GStojanov (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@GStojanov:  Done I struck the use of the word generally, and I added the phrase and acronyms. Yes, my primary objection was with the term temporary reference as it felt like an endorsement for its use by the Greek government. I don't have many real opinions in this debate, but I do think that the use of the term "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and all its variations is disrespectful. Separately, I do believe saying abbreviations and acronyms instead of abbreviations is redundant and necessarily deviates from the previous wording, but I can live with it. This is a good compromise, and thank you for understanding my position! :) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Side note: we could use the more inclusive variations and strike the now added phrase "abbreviations and acronyms". That would give people nowhere to hide in terms of its use. Maybe even better would be abbreviations or variations –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, abbreviations or variations is a better choice. :) GStojanov (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit Under section 1 Background strike: Then in 2019, the country of the "Republic of Macedonia" renamed itself to "North Macedonia" following the Prespa agreement with neighboring Greece, and this in its place add: On Feb 12th 2019 Republic of Macedonia changed its name to Republic of North Macedonia following the Prespa agreement that GStojanov (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, your suggested wording sounds better than before. In response to the talk above, I was trying to find a better one by myself, but I guess yours is good enough. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit Under section 4.1 strike: For example, Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film etc. is viewed as the acceptable phrasing. in its place add: (e.g. Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film, etc.) This is a shorter and more standard way for citing examples that are permitted and we use it in the current naming convention. GStojanov (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with this one. "is viewed as the acceptable phrasing" is unnecessary and cumbersome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit Under section 4.2 strike: can be avoided in its place add: should be avoided This is in line with the semantics of the first paragraph of this section. GStojanov (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with this one. "Should be avoided" is too strong, and it would contradict the very examples of proper use given right before, which do also contain adjectival forms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done consensus is needed for changes. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. I see your point. Let's leave it as is. It reads a bit awkward, but it does serve a purpose. GStojanov (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Three more small, purely stylistic nitpicks:

• In the Background section, replace the country of the "Republic of Macedonia" with: the Republic of Macedonia.
• As the heading of section 4, replace Certain topics with: Specific topics.
• In section 3.2, remove the commas around "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and replace Former with former (lowercase); this was the official spelling used by the UN.

Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

I made a few very simple copy edits to the draft, but there is one problem I found that I thought needed a little more discussion. "When referring to such state institutions by their official names, the article should respect the newly established forms of these names that follow this convention (e.g. "Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia"). " This is somewhat clunky and seems to once again present the Prespa agreement as binding on us. I would recommend something more like: "When directly referring to state institutions, the newly established forms (e.g. "Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia") should be used." Basically, use the exact names when we would do the same for any other country. For example, an article about Australia's military alliances would still refer to the "United States Department of Defense", but could conceivably say "American defence forces" as a proper paraphrase. --Khajidha (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

While I think your understanding of the intended practice is just like mine, I'd still prefer the current wording. The distinction to be made here is not one between "directly referring" and some other form of referring, but the one between using proper names and using generic descriptors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is exactly what "directly referring to" someone means. Also, the contrast with generic descriptors is made by the next sentence: "When directly referring to state institutions, the newly established forms (e.g. "Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia") should be used. However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural." --Khajidha (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the aforementioned copy edits I made was reverted, so I am bringing it here. The established text is "However, contrary to these provisions of the Prespa agreement, reliable sources have not consistently been following these exact naming conventions." I feel that "contrary to the provisions of the Prespa agreement" is both an inappropriate implication that outside source are subject to said agreement and (regardless of that) is redundant to the rest of the sentence. I do not see how the current phrasing adds anything that is not covered by my suggested phrasing " However, reliable sources have not consistently been following these exact naming conventions." --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Khajidha: I had to undo this edit. For reference, this would be a change in Section 5; to strike However, contrary to these provisions of the Prespa agreement, reliable sources have not consistently been following these exact naming conventions. and replace with However, reliable sources have not consistently been following these conventions.
I took the liberty of maintaining the removal of exact naming, but I feel we need more consensus to remove contrary to these provisions of the Prespa agreement, from this section. I believe this phrasing has been discussed above. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Khajidha on this one. What we currently have is tantamount to "However, contrary to this rule, people have not been following this rule", which is quite redundant. Just remove the "contrary to ..." bit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise and Khajidha:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit Under section 1 strike: "On Feb 12th 2019, the Republic of Macedonia changed its name to the Republic of North Macedonia following..." I don't think we need these definite articles. The sentence reads better without them. GStojanov (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Those "the"s are required by English grammar. --Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Really? Would we say: Last week the Standard & Poor's upgraded the credit rating of the Greece. Or would we say: Last week Standard & Poor's upgraded the credit rating of Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GStojanov (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No, but we would say "the Hellenic Republic". "Greece" is parallel to "Macedonia" or "North Macedonia". ANY country name involving "Republic of..." or "Kingdom of ..." etc MUST be preceded by "the". --Khajidha (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I see. Could we then simplify it as: On 12 February 2019, Macedonia changed its name to North Macedonia following... ? GStojanov (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it's better to keep the full, formal name here. --Khajidha (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It reads so awkward though. Maybe it is time for us to eat our own dog food? We say we will use the short name always, except in very formal situations (Russian Federation, etc.) Let's think about this some more. GStojanov (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Dude, there is absolutely NOTHING awkward about it. I am telling you, as a native speaker, that this is the normal phrasing. --Khajidha (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, "Feb 12th 2019" is a horrible date format. It should be either "12 February 2019" or "February 12, 2019," (note the closing comma after the year in the second version). --Khajidha (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@GStojanov and Khajidha: I did happily switch the date format, but I am agreement with Khajidha here. Per the main article: officially the Republic of North Macedonia, [emphasis added]. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, let's keep the definite articles and switch the date format only. I think February 12, 2019 works better. GStojanov (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit Under section 4.1: Move examples after the rule. In style guidelines we should follow the pattern: Rule, Example, Explanation. So the chapter should read: "The Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be referred to as such (e.g. Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film, etc.) This is in line with both the Prespa agreement and the large majority of reliable sources." GStojanov (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit Under section 4.2: Move the example after the rule: "The nationality of citizens of North Macedonia should still be referred to as "Macedonian" (e.g. XYZ is a Macedonian football player...). This, too, is in line with the majority of reliable sources (while according to the Prespa agreement, in official documents this nationality will be described by the double formula "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia")." GStojanov (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest rearranging this as follows: "The nationality of citizens of North Macedonia should still be referred to as "Macedonian". In particular, the term "Macedonian" is used for the routine description of people's nationality in the lead sentences of biographical articles ("XYZ is a Macedonian football player..."). This, too, is in line with the majority of reliable sources (while according to the Prespa agreement, in official documents this nationality will be described by the double formula "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia")." This puts the description of the particular case next to the example of the particular case. --Khajidha (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit Under section 5: Paragraph 3 and 4 to switch places and paragraph 4 to start with: "In most other contexts... " GStojanov (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @MJL:. Your help and initiative is well appreciated. I'm running out of ideas. I think this draft now looks good. GStojanov (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit Under section 5: Paragraph 4 replace Therefore in most contexts, both with In all other contexts, both I thought we did this already, but now I noticed it wasn't updated. This formulation is more precise. If the adjectival use is already described in previous text, use that, otherwise, use this default rule. GStojanov (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

For @MJL: lets make sure we do this edit too. GStojanov (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@GStojanov:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @MJL:. I think it looks good now. GStojanov (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Final Review

The proposal for consensus now looks good. What is our next step? GStojanov (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@GStojanov: oh dear I actually have no clue. I suppose we move it into project space and get the endorsement of the 3 closers. Pinging relevant users for review, @FlavrSavr, SilentResident, Argean, Future Perfect at Sunrise, ThorstenNY, and Khajidha: please indicate your support or opposition to the final product below. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Philly boy92 and Wiz9999: I know you two haven't been solicited for feedback yet, but I would like to hear from you both as well! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I was waiting for a response to my last point above.

Request for edit Under section 4.2: Move the example after the rule: "The nationality of citizens of North Macedonia should still be referred to as "Macedonian" (e.g. XYZ is a Macedonian football player...). This, too, is in line with the majority of reliable sources (while according to the Prespa agreement, in official documents this nationality will be described by the double formula "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia")." GStojanov (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest rearranging this as follows: "The nationality of citizens of North Macedonia should still be referred to as "Macedonian". In particular, the term "Macedonian" is used for the routine description of people's nationality in the lead sentences of biographical articles ("XYZ is a Macedonian football player..."). This, too, is in line with the majority of reliable sources (while according to the Prespa agreement, in official documents this nationality will be described by the double formula "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia")." This puts the description of the particular case next to the example of the particular case. --Khajidha (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

--Khajidha (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. GStojanov (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Khajidha:  Done My apologies for the delay. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Good job, mate. The final form of the draft seems good thus far. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Just one more final nit: In the "background" section, remove "several" in the phrase "several editors on Wikipedia conducted a new RFC". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I second this. But IMO we should change the "several editors" into "the editors" instead of just more ambiguous term "editors" (without "the" before it). IMO it is more appropriate to have "the" added to it, in the essense it was "the" community involved and not just some random editors. I feel it reflects better the participation of people in the creation, drafting and opening of the RfC. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident: I implemented the suggestion by Fut.Perf. because in my view a definite article like "the" should not be used in this context unless it was clearly defined. Since there is no clearly defined set of "editors on Wikipedia," I felt it best that it be left out here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh! I didnt think about it this way. OK then. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize to everyone for disappearing for more than a week. I was on a trip with some friends, and I was planning to spend at least some time in the discussion, but our car was broken into the first day and our laptops were stolen. Never leave valuables in a (rented) car, I guess. :) Anyway, the draft policy looks fine, I'll go through it again soon. You did a great job! --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering where are you, and I'm glad you are safe. :) GStojanov (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess that the next step would be for an administrator to be bold and to put the final policy draft into the policy namespace. The RfC is complete, it has been refined to be in line with existing Wikipedia policies, and polished to have a stylistic consistency. Future Perfect at Sunrise would you have the honor? :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@FlavrSavr: First off, I am glad you are back!! Secondly, my thoughts would be to first gain permission from the closing panel before we move it to project space, and then ideally one of them would file an procedural WP:ARCA just to ensure we had our ducks in a row with this. Fut.Perf., do I have that right? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think at this point we can just copy over the draft onto the old WP:NCMAC page. The closing panel have been aware of what we've been doing here and I don't think anybody will doubt that what we have now is a valid consensus (to the extent such a conensus is possible). I can do that later today if you guys are okay with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with it. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a second. I've noticed that in the Nationality section this sentence found its place > and the use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possible. In a discussion with Argean and MJL above it was established that it will probably create more problems than solve them. MJL please kindly remove it. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with this. It can be included but then, it must be stated that this was not consensus but an IAR-based statement. Any statement included must follow the consensus or at least, its spirit. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that it is safer to remove it completely. The way it is formulated right now could possibly undermine the entire consensus. If it is IAR it doesn't belong to a policy anyway, it's just common sense. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is in the spirit of the consensus, or in this case, no consensus. Including the statement as a guideline is a good way to reduce conflict regarding the same since our closing statement was mostly IAR, due to the absence of consensus. I also think that is why @Future Perfect at Sunrise: included it in their draft as well. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not requesting the removal of the entire sentence which is very useful, just the last part and the use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possible. This adjectival usage was not part of Future Perfect at Sunrise's draft. It was proposed by Argean but we quickly realized that it creates more problems than it solves. Somehow it was left in the final draft. I really think it is important for it to be left out. --FlavrSavr (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@FlavrSavr and MJL: First of all many apologies for my long absence, having a very busy couple of last weeks at work, after the Easter break. I'm glad you removed the last part of the sentence, since there were serious concerns raised about its inclusion. I'm still not 100% happy with the exact wording of the sentence, but since we couldn't find a better alternative, I'm fine with keeping what we already have. Overall I have to say that I'm very pleased with the final outcome - it exceeds my expectations by far, because at some point I was very concerned that we are stuck in a deadlock. I hope that we will be able to safeguard the implementation of the guideline as well, in the same cooperative and civilized way. --Argean (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

QEDK gave us a guidance how to proceed (on Apr 22nd, in this page): "The procedure to go about it is to have the current NCMAC marked as "historical" (moved to a subpage of newer guideline for preservation of page history) and have it superseded by the new consensus - noting that status quo applies if there's no change and until and unless the consensus is invalid (although a quick glance tells me there's not much besides core naming)". Let us all read his message and check if we are ready for the update. GStojanov (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It should not be cut-pasted as it was drafted by multiple editors and we should preserve the edit history to show that. Any page mover/admin can suppress the redirect and then move the current draft page. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the current draft in MJL's userspace was only edited by them, so copy-paste with attribution in edit summary would still technically be okay, but I have no problem doing it via page moves too (as long as the old guideline version remains visible somewhere). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was but there are edits by Khajidha and GStojanov as well. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK and Future Perfect at Sunrise: Once by GStojanov, and four other times by Khajidha. The only downside I can see with a page move is that it makes it look like that this was all my work when really it was everyone's feedback that I was just directly responding to. I'm okay with whatever method you all decide, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

However, I do want to state my only preference in this is that the guidelines get the new title Wikipedia:Manual of Style/North Macedonia-related articles since that will help clarify the scope of this page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I still prefer leaving it at the place the old guideline was, both to avoid confusion and for correctness: we are dealing with a naming convention issue here, not a style issue. These things don't belong under the scope of WP:MOS. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with FPaS, it is not a MOS subtopic but a naming convention, so it should be in line with other naming conventions which have been established separately. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Folks, as you may have noticed, I've performed the page moves and thus brought the new guideline "live". Congratulations to everybody who participated in this final effort as well as in the earlier planning and managing of the RfC; I think this was ultimately some pretty good collaborative work from multiple sides. Let's hope the new guideline becomes similarly stable and widely accepted as the previous one.

You may also have noticed I've moved this talkpage to the main guideline talkpage, merging its history with the existing page there and folding both pages' archives into a single sequence. I hope this will make finding things easier in the long run. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: first round of barnstars has been sent to celebrate the occasion. (second is going to go out in two hours or so) Everyone did such a great job, and I wanted them to have something to remember their contributions by. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone! This has been a long, and sometimes exhausting process, but we should be proud of the result, it is a very Wikipedian outcome, indeed! I'm especially proud of fellow Macedonian Wikipedians, regardless of whether they're of Macedonian or Greek ethnicity, who have been able to leave aside their axes and work in a civil, respectful and deeply Wikipedian way. This issue has been a tough burden to bear for both nations, and hopefully real-life events will emulate the process we had here (a man can dream). I'd also like to thank editors outside the region, who had the wisdom to understand the sensitivity of the issue and the patience to overlook the often bizarre intricacies of the Prespa agreement. --FlavrSavr (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

For me this was an emotional roller-coaster. But I think we achieved a workable and a decent compromise. I have special thanks for MJL and his enthusiastic involvement and help. GStojanov (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I am very happy and surprised with the positive outcome of the whole progress. Well done everyone. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I am finally caught up with the last 6 weeks worth of edits. Yes, I certainly approve of the well structured new guideline that you all have been busy generating in my absence. Well done to all for wrapping this process up and generating an outline that meets the conclusions established from the RfC. This has been a very positive process overall, with a lot of hard work and effort put into it by many in the en.wikipedia community. I'm sorry that I was unavailable for the last period to help out with the drafting process, but I think that we have ended up with something that works. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually just have one edit that I am going to make to the guideline, and that is to wikilink in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Sources sub-article onto some statements in the "Specific topics" and "Adjectival Form" sections. - Wiz9999 (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

mis-interpretation of the Prespa Agreement

@MJL: @Future Perfect at Sunrise: @QEDK:

An action is required here. The following sentence should be deleted or rewritten in a way that reports facts and does not express personal mis-interpretations.

According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement, the adjectival form "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. Instead, it suggests the plain "Macedonian" is to be used in some contexts; while in other contexts, both adjectives are to be avoided altogether in favor of the alternative of possessive constructions like "of North Macedonia".

This paragraph is misleading in the best case and wrong in the worst case. This is a personal (mis-)interpretation of the Prespa agreement and not a report of what the Prespa agreement says.

- "North Macedonian" is NOT generally to be avoided

- "Macedonian" is NOT suggested

- and in other contexts the Prespa Agreement is NOT in favor of the possessive form "of North Macedonia" either.

The truth is very different.

The adjective "North Macedonian" is not mentioned in the Prespa Agreement, but this does not imply that "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. This is just a personal interpretation that is not important for Wikipedia that reports facts and not personal opinions. Another interpretation is that North Macedonian is the obvious adjective for North Macedonia, so there is no reason to explicitly put it in the agreement. And since North Macedonian is the obvious adjective for a country or region or village or area called North Macedonia, the Prespa Agreement needs to clarify that for stated related entities the correct form is "of North Macedonia". And since North Macedonian is the obvious adjective, the Prespa Agreement also needs to clarify that for everything not related to the state, the adjective "Macedonian" may be used in line with the Article 7.

The Prespa Agreement says that everything reported in the 19 pages is about official level. So the possessive form "of North Macedonia" is about official level and only about state related entities. This is also explained with Paragraph 5 of Article 7 that says: Nothing in this Agreement is intended to denigrate in any way, or to alter or affect, the usage by the citizens of either Party.

So the Prespa Agrement is not binding for the people of Greece and North Macedonia either. So how can it be binding for other people or other countries or make any suggestions?

The Prespa Agreement is a bilateral agreement between two countries, and it is signed only by two countries. So the Prespa Agreement cannot enforce every other country to accept it. Does Germany have its own agreement that stipulates what adjective has to be used and what not? Of course, not! Does this mean that we are not allowed to use the adjective German for everything related to Germany (people, culture, food, etc) until we get a document with a stamp and a signature from all the other countries including Germany?

The Prespa Agreement does not say that "Macedonian" is suggested in other cases. The Prespa Agreement simply says that, in official level, for example, North Macedonia has the right to issue documents that use the adjective "Macedonian" for whatever is not related to the state. This is a right that North Macedonia has and is accepted by Greece. So North Macedonia can talk about Macedonian food in a governmental website, and Greece cannot complain about this. But this doesn't mean that Greece has to call the food of North Macedonia, as Macedonian food. Greece and all other countries can still call it North Macedonian.

The right of North Macedonia to use the adjective "Macedonian" in official level is not an obligation for other countries. This is what people fail to understand here.

Greece accepts the right of North Macedonia to call its food "Macedonian", because there is no legal way to stop it. Many countries in this world produce and sell "Greek yoghurt" or "Greek cheese", because Greece cannot stop them, unless the name "Greek yoghurt" is protected like in the EU. If there is no legal way for Greece to stop people in other countries to sell products with the adjective "Greek", how can you believe that Greece can stop North Macedonia using the adjective "Macedonian". Even if Greece could stop North Macedonia to use the adjective Macedonian for its own products, other countries could still call their products Macedonian. For example, do you think that Germany is not allowed to sell "Macedonian food" unless this is protected? So North Macedonia can call its own products "German", "French", "Italian", "Greek", "Macedonian", and "North Macedonian", unless these names are protected for a specific product according to the legislation. If calling them "Macedonian" is a good or bad idea, this is another story. Products of North Macedonia can also be called "Smart", but the right of North Macedonia to sell "Smart yoghurt" does not imply that "North Macedonia is Smart". Smart is just another adjective. :-) Peace in balkans (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No comment w.r.t the rest of the content, I don't see why subjective references to Prespa have to be kept in MOSMAC. @Neutrality and BD2412: can also weigh in here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for any of us to discuss this with a tendentious single-purpose account who has literally never done a single thing on Wikipedia other than obsessing over this single petty point in endless vexatious rants. Just ignore the troll. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: A year ago, you wrote on my talk page that if there is any issue, I should write a message on the talk page. This is what I did here, and you complain. As you can see, I was the one who pings you, as I am trying to improve Wikipedia. What is your problem? Do you have any arguments to debate my well-structured arguments? If you have arguments, you can report them here, and other users will figure out who is right. Please criticize me for my arguments/opinions, and not for how often I contribute to Wikipedia. What matters is the quality of my contributions, and not the quantity. I don't understand, what is the problem if a page is wrong and I give arguments about my suggestions? Are you afraid of arguments? Please tell me what exactly is wrong in the text that I wrote. You should try to improve Wikipedia and not block other users from improving it. I see here a motivation to support an agenda that sacrifices the quality of Wikipedia pages about North Macedonia. In any case, it was my fault to ping you, because I thought that you really care about Wikipedia. I didn't know that only people with may edits in Wikipedia have an opinion, I thought that everybody can make suggestions and after discussion we can improve Wikipedia together. Peace in balkans (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peace in balkans: [Thank you for the ping] I believe the logic behind using the Prespa agreement for the basis of policy was roughly two-fold: (1) it was the catalyst for having us revisit the policy in the first place and (2) the consensus was that what was good for the government institutions in the bilateral agreement was good enough for Wikipedia.
You are right that we probably oversimplified the conventions of said agreement to the point of being somewhat misleading on its contents, but I don't agree that it is as you have described either. However, that's another matter.
Regardless, I still standby the result of our consensus, but I would not mind seeing less references be made to the IRL Prespa agreement itself per qedk. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

MJL: We didn't use the Prespa agreement "for the basis of policy", and there was no consensus to follow it as "good enough for Wikipedia". We didn't oversimplify it either; what we summarize about it in the "adjectival forms" section is perfectly correct. The only reason we are mentioning it at that point is that it is necessary for the reader to understand why adjectival forms were a matter of contention that required separate consideration in the first place. The actual rule we (or rather: the RfC closers) came up with is quite explicitly against Prespa. Not that it matters much, but let's be clear about the facts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Point 1 is pretty accurate but point 2 is well, not so much (per FPAS). I am not aware of the editor in question (at all, in fact) and my suggestion for changes is exclusive of what kind of contributor they are — I had raised this before but did not think it was very important but there's a possibility that including it in guidelines sends a wrong message by implication (if not directly). Quoting MJL, ...seeing less references be made to the IRL Prespa agreement itself is the right way to go, as I said before. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're referring to as "Point 1" and "Point 2", could you clarify? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I was referring to MJL's points 1 and 2. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstandings, I din't say that we should change WP:MOSMAC. I accept that these are result of consensus. I say that the references to Prespa Agreement do not report facts, they express biased personal opinions. So some sentences have to been rewritten by those who wrote the text.The problem is that there is a clique of users who constantly remove the adjective North Macedonian from all pages, because they claim that this is better according to the Prespa Agreement. Changes have to be made based on WP:MOSMAC. So we need to ensure that WP:MOSMAC is absolutely correct and precise to stop this excuse and try to improve Wikipedia by using adjectives based on WP:MOSMAC. Please take a look at pages of North Macedonia. You will see maximum 5 examples of the adjective North Macedonian in all Wikipedia pages, because the same and the same users constantly delete it. Thank you. Peace in balkans (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: @QEDK: @Neutrality: @BD2412: Please take a look here: President_of_North_Macedonia. Before renaming the country, the adjective Macedonian was used twice in the first paragraph as you can see here, and based on WP:MOSMAC, some users try to update it to North Macedonian. Since then there is a clique of users like @Jingiby:, @TU-nor: @Local hero:, and @FlavrSavr:, who constantly find excuses to avoid the adjective North Macedonian against consensus. You can see the history of revisions to have a clear picture of the problem. If these users really removed the adjective North Macedonian to improve the quality of the page, I would accept it. But they do it in every Wikipedia page of North Macedonia. The result is that WP:MOSMAC is ignored and all pages of North Macedonia is a mess. You cannot find the adjective North Macedonian anywhere, although WP:MOSMAC says that it can be used. This clique of users ignores WP:MOSMAC, and they enforce their rules. How can we handle this issue? Can we allow a clique of people to block us from improving wikipedia? Peace in balkans (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to effect a change, obtain a consensus from the community for it. Our resolution to the discussion has stood for long enough to require that. BD2412 T 10:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this doesn't help here... a clique of people block us to make changes in line with WP:MOSMAC. The problem is a group of nationalists that attack all together to every single user that tries to make changes. Not every user does this, of course, but the users who are in line with WP:MOSMAC don't feel motivated to spend time to fight with the nationalists. So the result is a poor quality of Wikipedia pages full of inconsistencies and ambiguity. Peace in balkans (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)