Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:MOSMAC

Contents

[edit] Republic of Vardar

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

Does it make a difference? This isn't an encyclopedia article about Macedonia. The only relvant point is, do these appellations come close to being serious contenders for general use by us in Wikipedia articles? No, of course they do not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it entirely without reason or precedent? Not as long as the river flows. But if someone were to call Belgium Sambria tomorrow, I would describe it as an invented name, despite the Department Sambre-et-Meuse. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using "Macedonia" to refer to the country

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

My understanding is that there is, as "even then, the first mention should normally be a link to Republic of Macedonia". See for example User:ChrisO's edit here. That would cover templates, where there is only one mention. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Macedonia does this though. BalkanFever 07:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "a link to Republic of Macedonia" means precisely that, i.e. "Republic of Macedonia", not "Macedonia". Otherwise the entire sentence is redundant, don't you think? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
But they're both links (to the same page), that's why there is confusion about what to use. BalkanFever 08:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
So you're basically saying that the MoS says "you can use Macedonia if the meaning is unquestionably clear, but even then the country should initially be mentioned as Macedonia". How does that even make sense? I'd also like other editors' thoughts on this. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't, which is why the wording should be changed. There is an ambiguity in regards to "link to Republic of Macedonia". BalkanFever 08:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Alright then, my argument is that the spirit of the "law", regardless of the letter, is that "Republic of Macedonia" is the intended "first mention", being the "established" and unambiguous term. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have clarified. This was always intended to mean use of Republic of Macedonia, linked to the article, as first reference. This was not intended to include templates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
So then we go by unquestionable clarity - Macedonia. BalkanFever 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

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

The Republic itself, through its president's lips, argues that "Republic of" is enough of a disambiguation. It seems we are acting more pro-Macedonian(Slav) than the actual Macedonians(Slav). Also note MOS:DAB#Piping ("Do not pipe"), which by extension should apply here. Additionally, note that America is referred to as (obviously) "United States" in all North American navigational boxes where there's a disambiguation problem. The Republic of Ireland is stated in relevant templates simply as "Ireland", only because "the term Republic of Ireland is the description of the State but not its name."[1] However, the self-identifying name of the state in question, apart from heavily disputed, and apart from its common use in English being reasonably questioned, is also the "Republic of Macedonia"[2]. NikoSilver 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Templates exist only as parts of articles; they are not articles themselves. They should be treated accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Template namespace. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

But there always has been consensus that the MoS relates solely to article space. The very first line, which has been in the MoS since I created it on 11 May 2007, reads: "These guidelines deal with the naming of articles related to Macedonia." Nobody has disputed that, or even commented on it, since then. The recent edit regarding templates simply highlights the point made in that first line. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If that is true, it should be expanded to cover templates as well; they have no less potential for controversy and disruption. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and it should also include categories. It's essential that all three - articles, categories and templates - should be treated consistently. Having said that, we don't need to be obsessive about disambiguating the RoM at every possible occasion, which I think is the wider point Septentrionalis was making. For instance, in Template:Countries of Europe there's no possibility of confusing the region of Macedonia with the country of Macedonia, since there's no other European country by that name.
I think that in templates and categories, we should say that "Macedonia" can be used as a short form of "Republic of Macedonia", just as (e.g.) "Germany" is used as a short form of "Federal Republic of Germany". The present treatment of the RoM's name in templates is wholly inconsistent with how we treat other countries; we should be consistent here.
I've amended the guidelines to widen the scope to templates and categories, and I've added a line to cover templates. The bottom line is that the context of the template is key - we already permit the term "Macedonia" to be used to refer to the RoM where its meaning is unquestionably clear. There is still a need to disambiguate between the country and the Greek region (or the geographical region) if the template lists more than one of those. But in the case of something like Template:Countries of Europe there's no reason to disambiguate, since there's no other country called Macedonia. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think people should be encouraged to use plain "Macedonia". The reality is that it is far too controversial to be left untouched by Greek editors. And what does "may be used" mean? That "Republic of Macedonia" may not? There is simply no need to open such a can of worms. We don't need to be "obsessive" about avoiding disambiguation, either. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
But it is obviously clear what it refers to. Nationalist Greek editors would argue that people shouldn't be "encouraged" to use Republic of Macedonia either. We've been over the apparent offence many times. Emotional users can be reverted. BalkanFever 10:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
But on what grounds would one be reverted for using "Republic of Macedonia"? Since when is the "established term", which also happens to be the actual article location, taboo? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If Template:Regions of Greece has "Macedonia" on the basis of unquestionable clarity, so too can Template:Countries of Europe. BalkanFever 10:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question. What's wrong with "RoM"? That is the self-identifying term, after all, не? By the way, the self-identifying term for Macedonia is simply Macedonia, not "the Greek region of Macedonia" or "Aegean Macedonia" or whatever else. There is a slight but significant difference between it and the country. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ναι, it is. But it is redundant when we list countries. BalkanFever 10:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the self-identifying term for Greece? BalkanFever 10:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"Hellenic Republic", but everyone uses the short form Greece (equivalent of "Hellas") instead - which is precisely the point I was making below. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If there's a short form and a long form of equivalent meaning - as in the case of Germany vs Federal Republic of Germany - then the short form is nearly always used. Bear in mind that "Republic of" is merely an adjective describing the country's system of government - it's not a geographical name. As a general rule in English, we use a geographical name as shorthand for the state constituted on that territory (Canada for Dominion of Canada, North Korea for Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, and so on). There's only a need to disambiguate if there's potential confusion between two entities of equivalent status (e.g. China vs People's Republic of China vs Republic of China). -- ChrisO (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So then we go by unquestionable clarity - Macedonia. BalkanFever 10:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the clarity issue is absolutely crucial here. As you rightly point out, it's perfectly reasonable for Template:Regions of Greece to use "Macedonia" undisambiguated, as there's no other region of Greece by that name. Applying the same principle, it's equally reasonable to use "Macedonia" undisambiguated on Template:Countries of Europe, as there's no other country by that name. But if more than one Macedonia is listed, then disambiguation would be needed. Context is key. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Which leaves "Macedonia" as only being able to refer to the Greek region. That is precisely the reason I disagree with Greece's "compromise" proposals. They don't care for the actual region of Macedonia and "Skopje's monopolisation", they care for the nationalistic bullshit of "Macedonia is Greek". The fact that "Macedonia" is the self-identifying term of the Greek region proves that they are trying to monopolise the name. BalkanFever 11:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The crucial difference being that Macedonia's name is not a matter of international dispute, nor was it ever an obstacle to its membership of international organisations. If "Macedonia" were a mere region of the Republic - which is what it actually is, in my opinion - alongside, say, Paionia and Dardania, I'm sure Greece would take no issue. It only became an issue when the Republic sought independence as the state representing (all) Macedonia and Macedonians, at least until the irredentist articles in the constitution were amended due to pressure from Athens. And why is "Macedonia is Greek" nationalistic bullshit? Macedonia, at least according to the Greek understanding of the term, is Greek. The slogan was a perfectly legitimate reaction to this, in my opinion. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So essentially, it is only confusing to Greeks. Ego problems made them take it up with the country - "You may not use the name Macedonia" and then pressuring other countries to not use the name Macedonia. The fact that realpolitik dictates the Greek government cannot be as big assholes now that they were then does not change the reality. The position of Greece has always been for their Macedonia to be the real Macedonia. There is no international dispute - there is only Greece playing crybaby. And don't forget Paionia and Dardania have not been used since antiquity. They have only one meaning. Macedonia, however, even without the Greek region and the Republic, still has other meanings. BalkanFever 11:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

No, "Macedonia is Greek" does not mean Greece wants to annex the poorest republic of the former Yugoslavia, as in the Greek view it simply isn't Macedonia. None of the above changes the fact the country will have to change its name in order to get where it wants, so adopting a more constructive attitude is in its own best interests. If it were not an international dispute there would be no provisional reference used by international organisations, and no UN mediation. I know you dislike it, but that's the reality you face I'm afraid. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
But until the country changes it's name (if ever), the reality is when someone sees a country called Macedonia, they know what it means. And you know what it means, it's just you can't deal with it. BalkanFever 09:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
We've been dealing with it since 1991 without too much grief, actually. We're not as obsessed with the issue as you think, but if we are able to use our position to change something we dislike, why the fuck not? You'd do the same. The question is how long will you be able to deal with remaining outside the EU when every other country around you has joined? The stakes are far higher on your side of the fence, that's for sure. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

And in Wikipedia, everybody knows what "Macedonia" means when it refers to a country. BalkanFever 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, the needle's stuck again. FP's right though, we should stick to the essence. Why am I being reverted for simply stating the obvious, namely that we have a dispute regarding templates? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Re your last revert, have you even read the sentence? It is about templates, not bloody articles. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What is going on here? Kekrops gets banned and BalkanFever is left alone reverting and claiming we have consensus on something we are currently debating?--   Avg    13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pro and con

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

Pro

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

Con

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

---

  • And seriously I would revert it until I would get banned, no way in hell would I compromise in that.--   Avg    12:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't even accept the current compromise [3].BalkanFever 12:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Since when "Macedonia" piping to "RoM" has been a compromise here? You wish. --   Avg    12:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Then why didn't you just revert, instead of adding "FYR"? Don't worry, that's a rhetorical question. I know you're POV pushing. BalkanFever 12:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. You're advocating at this very discussion for Macedonia to be used a a reference to your country and you accuse me for POV-pushing. We have a proverb in Greece "The donkey called the rooster big-headed", which is similar to "The pot calling the kettle black".--   Avg    12:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yet if the donkey told the rooster "that name offends me, change it!" that would be OK. BalkanFever 12:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
What I'm doing is trying to explain to you (even though it is fruitless) that there is only one country called Macedonia. If you can't handle the truth because it hurts your feelings, nobody cares. BalkanFever 12:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually the similarity would be that the donkey would decide one day to call itself a rooster. Oh and about your other comment, unfortunately many people care and would never let you and your peers make Wikipedia your nationalist playground. Sorry.--   Avg    12:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No. The rooster (the Republic of Macedonia - I disambiguate when needed, not when I don't need to) has been a rooster all along. The donkey is just annoyed for no reason. It's also very obstinate. BalkanFever 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
In this proverb the rooster is Greece and the donkey is fYRoM. Never mind. Here's a list of Greek proverbs for your perusal [4]. In fact it's funny how many of them apply in this case. --   Avg    13:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I would give you a list of proverbs from you know where but they will all offend you. Not because of your ethnic background, but because of your emotional strength. BalkanFever 13:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Eh, come on now, this is crossing the line into not-so-nice territory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. BalkanFever 13:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
What was that about [5]? You now dictate the other side's arguments AND insult them as well? It's back.--   Avg    13:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh no! You found my contribution which I worked so hard to cover up with that distracting edit summary! What shall I do? Please. BalkanFever 14:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I know very well what I say and I said that if a non-encyclopaedic opinion prevails here I'll keep reverting it to eternity. Oh and I take that as a threat Fut.Perf. You are also bounded by the ArbCom as you well remember and you've proven many times you're not objective.--   Avg    13:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I don't do bans myself on these issues. I just said, I know such bans happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, for Fut Perf to actually do the bans himself would be ill-advised. He just gets me to do what needs to be done. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds a bit too cabalistic, don't you think? BalkanFever 13:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Shrug. It's realistic. If people edit-war over this one, as Avg has threatened, I'll be on hand to shove WP:ARBMAC down the appropriate throats. It would be appropriate to do so: this is just an extension of the long-standing fights on Macedonia (terminology). Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll tell you why I feel strongly about it. The template name has changed without any compromise. Since users who try to revert, even if the previous edits are completely arbitrary and unjustified, are put into revert paroles and can't really act on that (e.g. Kekrops who was reduced to just state his opposition on the talk page), ChrisO and BalkanFever are working towards a new de-facto situation. I can see where this is going.--   Avg    13:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that ChrisO is not from the Balkans, and I contribute completely independently from him. Also note that we have had many neutral editors contributing to Macedonia-related articles, and they pretty much all tend to disagree with the Greek editors. Of course they could all be on the oh-so enticing "FYROM payroll" (which I hear consists of freshly printed White Tower of Thessaloniki bills), or the alternative.....BalkanFever 14:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say you collaborate, but you are working towards a common goal, which is to push fYRoM POV, knowingly for you, unknownigly for ChrisO. ChrisO (and Fut.Perf. in a level) has an ill-conceived notion of protecting the minorities in Wikipedia against their perceived abuse from majorities. In order to cancel the arithmetic advantage they take sides. --   Avg    14:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So ChrisO, an admin since 2004 has no clue what he's doing and pushing "fYRoM POV", which, if you think about it, is an oxymoron. Whatever makes you happy. Again, the other alternative is they want to rid the encyclopaedia of nationalist propaganda, but this can't be, because the Hellenes are always right, and everyone else is just jealous. BalkanFever 14:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to make this clear, it's no secret that Moreschi and I have been closely collaborating in this field, and that he's taken action in a number of cases that I brought to his attention. However, I fully recognise that in this particular area of dispute I speak totally as an involved editor and not as an admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I assumed that to be obvious from the start. BalkanFever 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well and I'm happy that all this is on the record now.--   Avg    13:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The text essentially read (what to use for the country), where there is no ambiguity, WP has disagreement over what to use. I changed it to say that Macedonia is ok. Jd2718 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No the text reads that the templates will be modified from RoM to plain Macedonia. This is a huge step. Soon all templates for the country will be changed to "Macedonia" because "there is no dab". I'm sorry you can't see this, but I can.--   Avg    13:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely understand your political objections to it, but I'm afraid Wikipedia simply doesn't operate on that basis. If you look at other debated content elsewhere on Wikipedia, you'll see what I mean. The inclusion of historical depictions of Muhammad is a case in point - many of the points raised on the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ are relevant here too.
The bottom line is that there is of course no objection to disambiguation where it's necessary; but disambiguating to meet a particular political POV is in itself a violation of NPOV. Bear in mind that in using "Macedonia" as shorthand for the RoM (or for that matter FYROM), we're merely following common conventions for place naming. (Someone raised the counter-example of Czech Republic earlier, but the reason why it's a unique exception in Europe is that the name "Czech" was never latinised or anglicised - there was no "Czechia", though of course there's a Slovakia.) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree with the notion that an encyclopaedia simply describes and doesn't prescribe. This is something you've put in the guideline and I'm not at all sure it has such a wide consensus as you claim it to be. You seem to fail to understand the power an encyclopaedia has. An encyclopaedia prescribes simply by being there. Just by having a term sitting on the Wikipedia pages, this propagates to the millions of readers of this encyclopaedia, creates a resonance effect and becomes even more mainstream, having even more google hits, scientific references etc. And then, you (or people thinking like you), come and say, well "Macedonia" is the prevalent term, we're not even considering using any other term because here in Wikipedia we "describe". Well you describe something you have prescribed! Do not underestimate the power of Wikipedia, one of the top-10 sites on the web! And this is why this debate is so important to all sides. Both sides (RoM and Greece) very well know how important is for a mainstream encyclopaedia to propagate the correct term to the public. This is what third parties can't grasp and consider this a "ridiculous" debate.
Just as a side reference, in Greece the country is called Czechia :-) --   Avg    01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, "Macedonia" is used by people in the real world when there is no way of getting it confused with anything else. Example: "What countires have you been to?" "I've been to Germany, Latvia, Macedonia...". We are only talking about when it is clear what it means, not when another "Macedonia" is mentioned. It's funny that you mention the power of Wikipedia, because you have proven time and time again that you want everyone to call it "FYROM". BalkanFever 01:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The dab issue is the pretext of this discussion for both of us. I don't want to play games, there is a huge issue with the name "Macedonia". My only proposal to avoid such fruitless discussions would be that NOBODY uses the term Macedonia alone. NEVER. Not you for the country, not us for the province. Do you accept that? And yes, of course I'd like everyone to call the country "FYROM", this is exactly why I mention the power of Wikipedia (obviously!). It currently doesn't happen, so my view is that Wikipedia PRESCRIBES a view which is not objective. --   Avg    01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually it does happen, very frequently. I was looking at guidebooks the other day to see what terminology they use, and they all (Rough Guide, Lonely Planet, Bradt) do use "Macedonia" for both the country and the Greek province. Indeed, the Bradt guide is actually called simply "Macedonia". If you look at other encyclopedic sources, e.g. the BBC's country guide, you'll see that they also commonly use "Macedonia" to refer to the country (incidentally, the BBC seems to have had an editorial change of heart - it used to use FYROM until about six months ago). Looking at Google News, the vast majority of media sources (by a ration of about 9 to 1) appear to use "Macedonia" by itself. [6] So there's nothing unusual about using this terminology - in fact, our reliance on the longer name seems to be out of line with current common practice. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

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

I think it's for juxtaposition more than anything. BalkanFever 10:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems to be resolution-dependent. I'm reading this on an 800x480 screen and it's very hard to read with the columnar layout. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to make it resolution friendly? If there isn't I guess your stuck with it ;). BalkanFever 10:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any real benefit to it. The resolution is ok for me, but it is harder to read than it should be. Jd2718 (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm minded to change it to single-column layout for ease of use. Does anyone have any objection to this? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't my idea, but there are two reasons to have double columns (the note on Ancient Macedonian can just as well be a paragraph on its own).
  • It ensures a parallel structure, thus making sure that we cover the same points for both values of Macedonia.
  • I predict that if we don't, we will see squabbles about who gets to go first. I regret to say I'm not making this up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL :( Would it just be possible to make it thinner (at the expense of reading fewer words per line)? - Francis Tyers · 12:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the consensus?

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

Which specific modification are you referring to? The summary I just added is a quick summation of the lengthy text below. Feel free to modify it if you feel I've summarised it incorrectly. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Come on re Chris, you know I'm referring to the addition of the templates thingy [7] (I've only found the diff for Greece and couldn't find quickly the respective RoM diff, but the point is do we have consensus for that?)--   Avg    00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry - it's late and I'm tired. :-) Rather than just retyping a load of stuff, let me just point you to my comments at Template talk:Countries of Europe#"Republic of" again. Re the "vocal opposition", I recognise that some editors have political objections to this nomenclature but I'm afraid that's not something we can act on. If you have a policy-based objection, let's hear it. And re the Greek diff you highlighted, that merely mirrors the position for templates relating to the RoM - I noticed an imbalance there and fixed it (which I would have thought you'd approve of...) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So should one start editing the templates? BalkanFever 00:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I found there wasn't actually much need to do so - a great many of them already use the [[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia]] convention, which was somewhat unexpected. Template:Countries of Europe and Template:MKD were the only significant ones I found (so far, anyway) that needed changing. Are there any others? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye out, but you'll probably find them before me. BalkanFever 00:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. Is the proposal that "Republic of Macedonia" be banned from templates? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No. If the template mentions the Greek region, like the national anthems template, then we use "Republic of Macedonia". BalkanFever 11:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant templates linking only to country articles. Come to think of it, are there any that link to both FYROM and Macedonia? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly why your opposition was useless - it is unquestionably clear what is being referred to. BalkanFever 11:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Yeah, that was an insult. Whatever you say. Are you tired of me rebutting your arguments? If you are, I think Uncyclopedia is looking for members. Have funBalkanFever 11:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Απαξιώ. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

No, of course not - the alternative is anarchy, which doesn't benefit anyone. And in reply to Kekrops' query on Fut. Perf's user talk page, there's certainly no intention of banning the term "Republic of Macedonia" (or for that matter "Greek Macedonia" and its equivalents) from templates. The short form for the name of a region or country is the norm when there's no likelihood of it being confused with another entity, but the long form is still appropriate if both regions and countries are being linked in a template. Fut. Perf. has provided a good example of this in Template:Albanians, where both countries and regions are being linked. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
So you're refuting BalkanFever's argument that "Macedonia" may and should be used as long as "no other Macedonia is mentioned". ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really disagreeing, it's more a matter of there needing to be no likelihood of confusion with another Macedonia. If you have a template that links only countries, there's no other country called Macedonia. Likewise if it links only Greek regions, there's no other Greek region of that name. But where countries and regions are being linked, as in Template:Albanians, then it seems reasonable to use the long form to avoid possible confusion - in that particular case, "Macedonia" could mean the country, the Greek region or the geographical region, given the context. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to make the edit summary as clear as possible - obviously it didn't work. I could have just said "per WP:MOSMAC" but that leaves something to be desired. BalkanFever 10:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
We are all assuming that the reader of the template knows that there are currently (mainly) four Macedonias, and selects the right meaning depending on the context of the template. But this is not true. What if people who know only of this Macedonia, presume that it split from Greece and became a new separate autonomous entity? I say we always disambiguate both. We can't find the golden section in a real life problem ourselves. And we needn't split hairs every time and argue what is and what is not "unquestionably clear". It would be "unquestionable" if the majority of the readers knew all this, and I doubt if 1% does. NikoSilver 13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty academic. There can't be many readers who know the Greek one but not the Skopje one, rather than the other way round. Independent countries are generally better known that subnational entities. Practical proof of this is the often documented practice by foreign media, where they are not fettered by political correctness, of using simply "M" for the country. They wouldn't be doing that if they knew their readers would be liable to misunderstand them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Independent countries are generally better known than subnational entities = de facto monopolisation of the name by the country. Not something we should be promoting, especially when it can be easily avoided by simply using the actual article location, which by the way isn't simply Macedonia for some strange reason. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I knew I should use the opposite example in anticipation of Fut's response. So here goes: What if people who know only of this Macedonia, presume that it united with Greece when they see the e.g. "Regions of Greece" template? :-) NikoSilver 13:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
We are not intended for those both ignorant and clueless; they have a Simple English WP to lead them by the hand. Others will click on a link before assuming large political consequences from a mention on a template.
The same logic would forbid us from using Ionian Islands in the same template without explaining that this does not mean Chios, which was Ionian and is an island. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. In Greek, however, there's a subtle difference between Ιώνια and Ιόνια. Plus it's the Heptanese, officially. Plus nobody would care. As for "ignorants", well, I certainly didn't know the official appellation of Taiwan when I first signed in WP, and I don't consider myself an "ignorant" for not knowing something 5000 miles away from where I live. Go ask around how many people know this. NikoSilver 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with ignorance; we exist to fill it with knowledge. It's the combination with cluelessness that's destructive.
We cannot fail-safe against all possible leaps to all possible conclusions. (And I'm further from Taiwan than you are.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? So when did you find out first that Taiwan was China? Before that? You were not only ignorant but also clueless like me? And now that we all know here we are supposed to be omniscient and we also constitute the extreme majority? NikoSilver 22:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(left) Who ever said you were clueless< Niko? The clueless one is your hypothetical reader who deduces, from {{Regions of Greece}} alone, without even clicking on the link, that Greece has absorbed the Republic.
  • I certainly knew Taiwan was China before 1972; of course, it was a lot more prominent as a Permanent Member of the Security Council. But Future and I answer not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy who saved us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Disagree. I knew both Taiwan and China existed when I first signed in. No idea about how they were called and why. That's far from vanishingly small. NikoSilver 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You've lost me there. In what way does that affect my argument? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In the way that your argument is based that people will either know both Chinas/Macedonias or none. That doesn't make any difference, because they can know 1)Northern Greece and Macedonia (country), 2)Macedonia, Greece and FYROM, 3)Norther Greece and FYROM, 4)Macedonia, Greece and Macedonia (country). For those who know something, your argument holds water only for the latter. As I said, I knew both Chinas, and one of them I knew with the wrong self-id name. See? NikoSilver 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't imagine anybody (outside Greece, perhaps) who'd be familiar with the term FYROM and not also know that that entity is also called Macedonia. How else would they have learned that absurdly opaque acronym FYROM in the first place, if they didn't know what the last letter stood for? FYROM is not a term that you ever meet much in everyday life, outside Greece, in my experience. So, of the four groups you described, (2) and (3) are pretty much empty, and my scenario would work without problem for (1) and (4). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please cite the "emptyness" for groups 2 and 3; I've cited why it is not empty millions of times. I also disagree with your scenario working for (1). How will it work for 1 if the template is for provinces of Greece? NikoSilver 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Aside from my disagreement with the "emptyness", and aside from my disagreement with your scenario working with (1), we forgot to add 5)Northern Greece and Yugoslavia, 6)Macedonia, Greece and Yugoslavia, 7)Northern Greece and nothing, 8)Nothing and Macedonia (country). Your argument would work interchangeably only depending on the template's content. NikoSilver 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not citing anything, this is a discussion about editorial common sense, not about sourceable article content. How exactly do you believe you have "cited" ("millions of times") how (2) and (3) are not empty? Have you ever come across a person (outside Greece) who knew the term FYROM but didn't know "M" stood for Macedonia? I sure haven't. The idea seems mindboggling. As for the reverse problem with (1), that's not the problem we are talking about. For lists of provinces of Greece, we can't reasonably do much else than what we presumably do now (i.e. [[Macedonia (Greece)|Macedonia]]. It's perfectly reasonable to do, even at the (remote) risk that the odd reader of group (1) might be momentarily a bit confused. That's really the worst that can happen. In fact, all I'm suggesting now is that we might just as well do the same the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's already "the same way round", we don't call it FYROM in those templates. "Republic of Macedonia" is what the country calls itself. How would you call Greece's Macedonia to help disambiguate? Call it "region of Macedonia" if you want. Plus we're talking about only ONE template (Template:Regions of Greece) vs a zillion others with countries of whatever. The other suspect, (Template:Peripheries of Greece) already has modifiers for clarity (West, Central, Eastern). NikoSilver 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh? What are you reading into me again? I said very clearly I find it perfectly sensible to not disambiguate Greek Macedonia in a Greek-regions-only template at all. Because the danger of misunderstanding is minute. By the same logic, I'd find it perfectly defensible to not disambiguate the country in a countries-only template. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What part confuses you? I'm saying that if you want to dab MkGr in its template in return, then go ahead and do it. I don't find dab-ing MkGr objectionable, even if it's a pleonasm for some. It won't be for others, and it doesn't (and shouldn't) hurt anyone's feelings. Same for the Republic (apparently -see penultimate post below). NikoSilver 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
But of course I don't want to dab MkGr in its template. Because I'm an aesthete, as Kekrops would say. Unlike some, I perceive of these decisions not as a political power game of annoying or satisfying political sensitivities, but as a service of giving our readers the most efficient, elegant wording possible. All disambiguating additions should be kept to the necessary minimum. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, fellow aesthete, I guess we define necessity differently. Political sensitivities are irrelevant when it comes to a reader thinking that the largest region of Greece broke away, or that an independent country merged to Greece. Especially if there's no need to, and if there's no offense involved. Finally, I find the separation of Template space vs Article space very technical and very wiki-legalese. I'd be terribly embarrassed to bring it up as an argument in the first place. We named that article like that for a reason. The same reason applies to templates and younameit. If you want, I can live with "the first mentioning always being Republic of Macedonia, and every consequent one simply Macedonia". (hehe) NikoSilver 00:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It is an issue, clearly, in the real world. It's just that here, the ἐλέῳ Θεοῦ powers that be have decided that it shouldn't be. And if we don't like it, we can piss off, I know. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case, neutrality should not be feigned. The decision to deny it as an issue is entirely arbitrary and political. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Only in the sense that the adoption of WP:NPOV is a political decision in the first place, which of course it was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not an issue of being politically neutral with respect to the real life issue. It's an issue of principle with respect to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia naming practices are descriptive, not prescriptive. You've heard it a million times, but you apparently still don't understand what that means. It means exactly this: we don't care about what our reader thinks about that other coloured spot on the map. We only care about whether they can find the right one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
But this has extended beyond what you're saying. In the beginning, we were told that "Republic of Macedonia" was the only acceptable article location as that was the self-identifying term and it would be NPOV to dispute it. Now we're told that even that is not good enough, and that it has to be plain "Macedonia" and you Greeks can go jump for all we care. In light of such arbitrariness and inconsistency, I'm sorry if you cannot understand that it has become difficult to assume good faith. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What's so difficult? It's a matter of disambiguation. Bleh, we've discussed that a billion times too. Where real disambiguation needs (picking the right spot on the map rather than the other one) are a realistic issue, "Republic of..." is a useful disambiguator. Where that's not an issue, simplicity prevails. Weren't you the one who declared an aesthete the other day and wanted to fix texts for more elegance? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It now seems that "disambiguation" has a higher priority than NPOV. It doesn't matter if a term is POV, as long as it's clear to the reader what it refers to. Let's see what the next invention will be...--   Avg    18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Where self-identifying names are concerned, that has indeed been always the explicit policy. You are beginning to grasp something. At last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly Fut.Perf. please re-read what you've just said and if you're happy with this state of affairs in Wikipedia then I really should lose any small hope I still have that we might reach the light at the end of the tunnel.--   Avg    22:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I am fine with "Republic of Macedonia". I never said I wasn't. But 1) common sense dicatates that it should be called "Macedonia" when there is no need for disambiguation (for both places), and 2) The "monopolisation" thing is a load of bull. We can go two ways here: simplicity and common sense, or the one where random users change the consensus on templates because it's obvious. BalkanFever 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with Macedonia, Greece or whatever makes it different. The monopolization thing was viewed the other way round yesterday in Talk:Thessaloniki... I was one of those who helped avoid it (for MYkedonia :-)). I'd do it again, but I'd demand the same from the "unquestionable" other. And I still think that we are too busy to start arguing in every freakin' talkpage if the meaning is "unquestionably clear" and for whom. We need universal simple rules. Not exceptions of the exception. NikoSilver 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Most "Republicans" (bless you, Anderson, I thought you were talking about this kind the first time round) were more than happy with the status quo ante - why wouldn't they be? - but the cabal decided it had to be plus royaliste que le roi. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not intend to discuss the current politics of the United States on Wikipedia. Until at least November next they will be a worse snake pit than this one.
I have been using Republican and Provincial on this page, consistently, to designate the two kinds of Macedonian; that even Kekrops finds this unclear is a bad sign for the policy he advocates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I found it unclear until I figured out what you were talking about, as it was the first time I had seen the word used in that context. I'm sure many others fell into the same trap, or maybe I'm just a natural blonde. It's not exactly common usage, but I think it's a great idea all the same. Be careful, though; if the Republicans are "offended" so easily by the name of their own capital city, imagine how they'll feel about being named after their form of government. Expect a stern warning on the use of "pejorative epithets" from User:ChrisO. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Economist discovers WP:MOSMAC

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

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

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

LOL. BalkanFever 02:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And in answer to your question "Are you famous now?", the answer is... sort of. Take a look at this Economist article from last year: "This correspondent’s modest Wikipedia entry was edited this week by an anonymous contributor who posted a series of entertaining but defamatory remarks; a mere four minutes later, another user had removed them." The remover was me. I have a pretty good idea who wrote the latest article, too. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What would be funny is the thought of Matthew Nimetz stumbling upon this :-) BalkanFever 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What makes you think he hasn't? ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe he would have told us more about himself. BalkanFever 03:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The poor fellow obviously has a severe conflict of interest problem. Let's help him out and fix that red link. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if he can't write about himself in the third person from a neutral point of view then that's a problem for him. But yes, let's help him out. I'll let you start the article if you want - unless of course you are Matthew Nimetz ;-D BalkanFever 04:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"You are Lobby Lud Matthew Nimetz and I claim my five pounds?" I deny everything! Seriously though, I'm off to bed now, so if you want to start the article, please feel free to do so. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I really can't find much info about him. I'll keep looking, but for now I'll make a subpage where anyone interested can add sources: User:BalkanFever/Matthew Nimetz. BalkanFever 04:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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

We really don't. Maybe I'm him. Maybe you're him. Maybe it's Fut. Perf. (not sure, but Nimetz does sound a bit German). It doesn't really matter though, but we should have an article on him. BalkanFever 05:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I swear I'm not! ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The search continues....BalkanFever 05:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I just stumbled upon this. LOL, just today I spotted that annoying red link in Macedonia naming dispute and clicked it! (Shhh, don't tell them I'm him, they'll delete my article on the grounds of WP:COI) NikoSilver 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, BF, your subpage is much more informative. Please transfer the content there, and sorry for creating it before you. If I had read this section I'd have contributed in your subpage. NikoSilver 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, I will do that now. BTW, I got the idea of creating a subpage then moving it to the mainspace from you ;-). BalkanFever 11:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this, I've added a lot more info. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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

My speculation is that it is German, but I actually have no clue. BalkanFever 13:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's German, but ironically it actually has Slavic roots - it's derived from the West Slavic term for "German" (e.g. Polish niemcy). I'd guess Nimetz has Pomeranian or Prussian ancestry. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, the Slavic (not only West Slavic) root for German is derived from mute, and the root for Slav is derived from speech :) --Cameltrader (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
ZOMG, ethnic stereotypes! Who would have imagined it? ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, not really, because the Germans were mute, in the sense that they could not understand, or utter anything comprehensible to, the Slavs. More of an observation than a stereotype. But I heard it was folk etymology anyway. BalkanFever 11:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading summary (Greece-related articles again)

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

In this link I can only see you objecting to the current status quo. So the only new development on this is that you haven't changed your mind from last year.--   Avg    16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The passage that was eventually adopted in the guideline text on the basis of that discussion was written by me, NikoSilver, Kekrops and Pmanderson, with ChrisO watching. That was the agreement. Also, the status quo of "agreement about no agreement, no fixed guideline" is undoubtedly also the factual status quo out in the wiki, as for instance our dialect map clearly shows (as it has stood unchallenged and with that legend for almost as long as that falsifying summary has been on this page.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Fut. you can't just selectively apply the "factual status quo" because "undoubtedly" there is no consensus on how RoM should be named, right? This is double standards. either we follow the status quo, or we don't.--   Avg    17:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

If we are going to also have a shortened "summary guideline", it needs to conform to this and not introduce more non-existent "conventions" through the back door. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is no consensus on Greek-related articles, but I also recall the brutal imposition of "consensus" vis-à-vis the shortening of "Republic of Macedonia" to "Macedonia". There was in fact no such consensus there either. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Α ρε Νικολή... Ever the optimist. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I was born on a Saturday. ;-) (without even having an idea about Bucharest's veto, or the upcoming elections, or the new accession talks --check my timestamp). Scheffer says he agrees with me (lol), but I'd tweak to October now, given "the swims of the people". NikoSilver 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Me too. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fix situation

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

So now the ethnic Macedonians are not even a Slavic ethnic group? Why not go further and actually ask Wikipedia to state the fact that they're the direct descendants of the Ancient Macedonians? --   Avg    17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The Serbians in Macedonia are also Slavic speaking people (some% of the people) (can be inside the Slavic ethnic group) and Bosnians are as well. People might get confused on the issue. In this article the situation refers to ethnic Macedonians, not the etnic Serbs or Bosnians or the sum of all of them as Slavic speaking people (if you see the recomendation "Use "Macedonian Slavs" or "Slavic Macedonians" to distinguish them from the other ethnic groups in the region"). It is more precise to be Macedonian ethnic group. Slavic ethnic group is too general in this case. (Toci (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC))
Toci has a point, "Slavic Macedonians" as opposed to "Serbian Macedonians" doesn't make much sense. BalkanFever 03:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Slav Macedonians or Macedonian Slavs is historically the most common term used for disambiguation in the literature. And it has always been used to mean "non-Serb and/or non-Bulgarian Slavs of Macedonia", even if the Serbs and Bulgarians and are also Slavs. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Slavic ethnic groups is meant to be used for ethnic Macedonians, but can be used for Serb, Bosnian and Bulgarian (Macedonians). Therefore the Slavic ethnic group should be changed into ethnic Macedonians to avoid that confusion. When there is Slavic ethnic group all the Slavic groups in Macedonia must be included (Serbs, Bosnians, Bulgarians and Macedonians). The ethnic Macedonians are only one of those groups, Slavic ethnic group in Macedonia does not mean exclusivelly ethnic Macedonian. I think this is clear enough. (Toci (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
OK, I've changed it to Slavic Macedonian, which also follows the actual wording prescribed in such cases. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It is now manual for nothing with your edit. Situation: When you have Slavic Macedonians. Convention: Use Slavic Macedonians. No need to write same situation-convention. (Toci (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
Are you now revert-warring about a lame naming issue on the very guideline page about how to deal with lame naming issues. That's the hight of lameness. Please stop, this is just too ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Brilliant solution, but it is again a lime edit, it means ethnic Macedonians=abovementioned ethnic group. This is an edit after Future wrote to stop the lame edit. I ask Future to judge the situation. I think that is best to be precise and use ethnic Macedonians, but it is consensual agreement here. I agree on your incongruous point. That is why there is opposition and discontent about the naming by the ethnic Macedonians. (Toci (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
A big reply to Niko’s talk above. This is rather a partial view comparing only "ethnic Macedonians" and "Slav Macedonians" together with "Macedonian Slavs". The Google Scholar shows 80 hits for "Slavic Macedonians" as well. The truth is that we are refered mostly simply as Macedonians with some 10000 hits.
Don't forget to write that the Greek speaking English and Greek influenced scientists (especially the Greek history writers) use Slav Macedonians and in most cases they describe only the ethnic Macedonians who live in the Greek provinces in regard to historical events. Examples from Niko's link are: "...number of Greece's Slav Macedonians...", "The Slav Macedonians of the region were becoming increasingly responsive to calls from Yugoslav Macedonia...", "Most Slav Macedonians left the region during the Balkan Wars..." etc. The true conclusion is that the most common qualifier in English literature for the ethnic Macedonians living in Greece is Slav Macedonians. The minority qualified in English literature as Slav Macedonians declares itself as Makedones=Makedonci=Macedonians. They write in three languages so it is easy to see that they don't use Slavomakedones, but Makedones.
Since the Slav Macedonians in all the possible versions as terms are of special interest to the Greek editors my special interest is Greek Macedonians in all the possible versions. The "Greek Macedonians" have 72 hits. "Macedonian Greeks" brings 142 hits. That is almost nothing compared to the "Greeks" search that brings 391000 hits.
There are some false positives i.e. the result produced does not refer to the intented or desired meaning of the term. This error occurs, of course, in all of the above (and following) search results, including this one, "Macedonians"; to get a somewhat wider perspective here are the results for the terms "Greek Macedonian", 518 hits and "Macedonian Greek", 327 hits. --157.228.x.x (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless. It could meen Macedonian + Greek, the Macedonian and Greek language, by the hits. The only true hits are few books by Greek authors that are recently written. (Toci (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
Not quite. "Greek Macedonian" as an 'ethno-regional' term, bounded by various (albeit finite) perceptions of a Greek ethno-linguistic (modern) identity, is treated or quoted by non-Greek authors as well. A notable, perhaps, example is quoted by LM Danforth in his (rather extensively cited in wp) book "Macedonian Conflict: [...]". And that's all we need really. --157.228.x.x (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
But there is a general big confusion in the manual in all the terms regardless of the situations. Greek Macedonians can mean ethnic Macedonians from Greece as well. Slavic Macedonians, Macedonian Slavs, Slav Macedonians can mean Macedonian Serbians or Macedonian Bosnians.
The combination of the ethnicities and citizenships is probably the best understandable solution. Meaning ethnic Macedonian from Greece=Greek Macedonian, ethnic Greek from the province Macedonia and in Republic of Macedonia=Macedonian Greek. We are ethnic Macedonians as we are offically and that is different then Ancient Macedonian. The question are the Ancient Macedonian Greek? The answer is they are bilingual and binational, they are both Greek speaking and speakers of an unknown non-Slavic language that with the other Balkan languages influenced the todays Macedonian language (kaucia (garanty), Darron (Zdravje=Health), Artemis Blouvitis (Lovitsa=Huntress in MKD), koios (broi=counting, broj=number) etc. from XMK can be traced into the XMK language. The biliguality and binationality of the Ancient Macedonian is concept from livious.org.
The principle of sharing is never negotiated among the Greek and Macedonians editors. If the Ancien Macedonians are both Greek and Macedonians as ancestors of todays Macedonians there is a win-win situation. This is a preview of the most scary example article about Alexandar the Great. Alexandar the Great is Greek who has spread the Greek culture and language around the world and he is Macedonian who is regarded as ancestrial king by the Macedonians today etc... I will refer to the first belief published by Miladinov Brothers in 1861 in Macedonia that speaks about king (tzar) Alexand'r and his sister Roxandra. Miladinov Brothers also write about a belief for a city surrounded by water where the Macedonian kings (tzars) were used to be buried (the city of Voden=Eddesa). (Toci (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
Once again you've filled the page with fringe theories. I think you should try blogging, you seem to be quite prolific. --   Avg    02:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Livius.org is source for Roman history based on Roman writers. It is not fringe theory, it is a theory. Macedonians kept their history as narative on a same way that was written by Herodotus. Our history exists as folk tales. That is why it is hard to assimilate the Macedonians and turn them in anything else then Macedonians. As Kekpos noticed this manual is incongruous if it is written literally.
In meanwhile I will refer to another folk tale about Alexander the Macedonian collected by Marko Cepenkov (in his 1972 collection, story 270, mentioned in the article about him) in Macedonia. In this story Alexandar Makedonski was put in a bottle where he saw how the fishes were organized and he organized his army in a same way in rows and in groups that had one big fish infront as commander. In meanwhile when he was in the see his sister got worried and turned in half-dolphin to look for him, but she was cursed to never found him (in the above myth Roxandra turned also in dolphin to escape from Alexandar). In the conclusion of the story says that Alexander managed to win over many armies and take big taxes from his winings. The conclusion of the folk tale is a historic fact. He also says that the commanders were in front of the army groups, again a historic fact about Alexander who was always ahead his army. (Toci (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
LOL, he wasn't talking about livius.org but your wonderful, scholarly synthesis, rather. Don't worry, though, Greece has its fair share of folklore about Alexander's sister (turned mermaid) asking sailors if the great king lives. I'm sure you'd find such stories about Alexander even in unexpected places. They thought that it was difficult to change Bulgarians into anything else too, and you see what happened. (though it wouldn't be half bad to have Thracians around, as well. shame that was never pulled off successfully.) 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I was not syntesizing anything, Alexander is in our national history an ancestral king as it is Greek in Greece's national history. Both statements are based on myths, there is nothing scholarly proved. Therefore the livius.org idea of bilinguality and binationality is interesting. It tangles both myths. (Toci (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. However, I agree with you...it's a shame that Greece and the Republic didn't manage to have compatible national myt...err 'official histories'. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Int' Organisations, the n-th time

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

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

There you go again, trying to change the rules simply because you dislike them. Interesting, given that you are so quick to ridicule the dislikes of others. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
My opinions are exposed in the relevan discussion of the article FutPer mentions above. I have nothing else to repeat, except for the fact that what he characterizes as an "exception" is a crome against common sense, since this "exception" is the only internationally recognized name of this country. I rest my case!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)