Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC

Due to the

• Option A: It should be "North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe"
• Option B: It should be "Republic of Macedonia, now Republic of North Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe"

Additionally, the following four entries are in the first section of the Macedonia disambiguation page (Macedonia most commonly refers to):

What should the order of these items be?

Please list the order of each item following your choice of Option A/B as:
#1 foo1, #2 foo2, #3 foo3, #4 foo4.

Survey (disambiguation)

• Neutral on exact wording; Outside scope of this RfC for the ordering question. This RfC shouldn't attempt to micro-manage particular details on individual pages, but concentrate on general things we need an actual guideline for. (But if we have to micro-manage: it should continue to be ordered according to prominence of reader interest, which is well documented, and that means country > ancient kingdom > Greek region > wider region.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: seeing so many people below argue for orderings with the "region" on top: That one is absolutely the worst. We are dealing with a section in a dab page headed by the sentence "Macedonia most commonly refers to:". Having that sentence followed by the least common meaning first is downright absurd. The readership of

Macedonia (country)

by more than one order of magnitude, and the "region" meaning is also far, far less frequently encountered in outside sources. It's a logical fallacy to think that because it's geographically the article with the widest scope it must also be the one with the widest interest to readers. Disambiguation pages must be a service to readers, and by that criterion, the only acceptable ordering remains:

1. North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe
2. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity.
3. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
4. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on exact wording as per
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
  ):

1. North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe
2. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity.
3. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
4. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)

--FlavrSavr (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
2. North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe
3. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
4. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity.

This follows the same format as

blah) 19:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Neutral as to the wording but the country should be first (country > ancient > Greek region > wider region) per same rationale as FlavrSavr. --Local hero ^talk 19:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
2. North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe
3. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
4. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity.

This follows the same format as Korea (disambiguation) and Ireland (disambiguation), where we first get a mention of the region, followed by the modern political entities, followed by historical entities. --Despotak (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
2. North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe
3. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
4. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity.

This follows the same format as Korea (disambiguation) and Ireland (disambiguation), where we first get a mention of the region, followed by the modern political entities, followed by historical entities. --Antondimak (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity.
2. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
3. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
4. North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe StevenHal (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — StevenHal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
2. North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe
3. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
4. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity. — Tom^(T2ME) 20:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A and sorted per Michail, Despotak, Antondimak and Tom I initially voted "Option A and sorted per Google hits" but after reading the arguments in the discussion bellow, I changed my opinion and now I believe, that, this disambiguation shall follow the same rationale as other politically sensitive disambiguations such as the Korea Disambiguation. I can't see why this one here should be different from the others. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on the wording, since I consider it a minor issue. I don't have a strong opinion for the order either, but since question was included I would go for 1.
  Michail and Despotak's rationale.--Argean (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity. (Explanation: The article start with the word Macedonia and it's the oldest)
2. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
3. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
4. North Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe

The North Macedonian government has agreed not to use "Macedonia" and use "North Macedonia". Since it the country is now called North Macedonia, people and media will increasingly start using North Macedonia and no longer confuse the it for another entity. Macedonia will become a historical and geographical term. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) should go first followed by Macedonia (Greece) since it encompasses most the area of the ancient kingdom. Dash9Z (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
2. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
3. North Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe, formerly known as Republic of Macedonia
4. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity.

Following the same format as Ireland (disambiguation) and Sudan (disambiguation), where the region (which is the most general definition and includes and explains the others) comes first, then the larger of the two modern political entities which has the same name as the region, then the smaller political entity, then historical entities. Kkyriakop (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — Kkyriakop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Option A --StanProg (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity.
2. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
3. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
4. North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe

I absolutely agree with the explanation given by Sashko1999 Peace in balkans (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — Peace in balkans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
2. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity.
3. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
4. North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe

I know this order may not be popular, but my reasoning is that, under consideration of all the options playing out in my head, "(region)" is the most relevant now. Thus, this goes at the top, no matter what. But what to do with the rest? "Macedonia (Greece)" and "North Macedonia" are equivalent in my mind (they both describe current political administrations, so these should be alphabetical. "(ancient kingdom)" could thus go before or after these two, but I prefer it before because it keeps the list 'mostly' alphabetical. This means my second choice (given the likely unpopularity of the first one) would be the reverse alphabetical of this; #1 Macedonia (region), #2 North Macedonia, #3 Macedonia (Greece), #4 Macedonia (ancient kingdom). This just so happens to correspond with the earlier entries by

Michail, Despotak, Antondimak, and Argean for unrelated reasons. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Option B: ’’’A’’’ is incorrect. It should be ‘’’Macedonia’’’, officially the ‘’’Republic of North Macedonia’’’. For now, Macedonia is its common name. That may change some day. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A. As for the order, we should take into account that readers may not be sure which article they are looking for. Such readers are best served by listing the articles in order of likelihood to be what readers searching for Macedonia are looking for. Per today, that means the following order:

1. North Macedonia
2. Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
3. Macedonia (Greece)
4. Macedonia (region)

Libhye (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A, normally we do not use "Republic of" or "Kingdom of" in front of country names, except in cases of deliberate disambiguation, which is not applicable here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe
2. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity.
3. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
4. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)

This is the logic sequence now in my view. It may change as people adjust to the new nomenclature, but not in the short term. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (region)
2. North Macedonia
3. Macedonia (Greece)
4. Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

This order gives the region as a whole - which I think is probably the most obvious thing that "Macedonia" alone might mean - then the modern political entities starting with the sovereign state, then the historical entity.

I would, however, not incorporate the order into MOSMAC and allow the order to be changed by talk page consensus in the normal way. Kahastok talk 10:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity.
2. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
3. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
4. North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe Xaris333 (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A. The ordering is outside the scope of this RfC. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A in main article. Imagine that Wikipedia got started in 1991 rather than 2001. Would we have said "Zaire, now Democratic Republic of the Congo, is a country in central Africa" in 1998? No, we would have switched things over and provided the old name later in the first sentence. Also see Burkina Faso, which doesn't even mention "Upper Volta" until the fifth sentence. As far as the disambiguation page, use this order:

1. Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
2. Macedonia (Greece)
3. Macedonia (region)
4. Republic of Macedonia, now known as North Macedonia

Just treat it as a matter of alphabetical order, or even frame the last one as "Macedonia (republic)" to make the alphabetical focus more obvious. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (region)
2. Macedonia (Greece)
3. Macedonia (ancient kingdom), a kingdom in Greek antiquity.
4. North Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe, formerly known as Republic of Macedonia

The reasoning for the order is that North Macedonia is not 'Macedonia' anymore while the three other entities are. Of course, we keep it in the list because it was know as such until very recently.--APG1984 (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A for the moment in the following order (although I got no hard feelings about it

1. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity.
2. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
3. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
4. North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe

--Azeryion (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — Azeryion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Greek antiquity. (Explanation: The article start with the word Macedonia and it's the oldest)
2. Macedonia (Greece), a traditional geographic region spanning three administrative divisions of northern Greece
3. Macedonia (region), a geographic and historical region which today is part of six Balkan countries (see map)
4. North Macedonia, a country of southeastern Europe

Without strong feelings, I would propose this order because its the alphabetical. Any other order would need justification that would lead to endless arguments Stevepeterson (talk)

• Option B and Abstain from Ordering issue.

While originally I considered this issue to be trivial,

As for the ordering issue, that is most certainly Outside scope of this RfC as pointed out by Fut.Perf. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 03:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A, and in the order: region, country, part of Greece, ancient place. Not sure why everyone above is being so long-winded in specifying these.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A, and in the order: region, country, part of Greece, ancient place. Per SMcCandlish. Option A, because Option B looks to me incorrect and misleading (why to prioritize a non-existing name?). As regards the order, it serves the logic "going from the general to the more specific": whole region→counry in the region→region in a country, being part of the whole region→non-existing ("osolete") ancient kingdom in the region. Any other order seems to me incoherent and confusing.Yannismarou (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That specificity-logic argument is both true and fortuitous; my own (unstated) rationale was relevance to most readers (broad topic, modern major nation, modern region, very old news). So there's at least two separate and compatible rationales for this order.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B, and in order: country, region, administrative units in other countries, ancient kingdom - Македонец (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, and the order per Fut.Per. and FlavrSavr's comments.MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A with the following order:

1. Macedonia (region)
2. Macedonia (Greece)
3. Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
4. North Macedonia

Place Clichy (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B, and in order: country, region, administrative units in other countries, ancient kingdom - The name of the country is not North Macedonia. It is Republic of North Macedonia. You cannot use Option A as is, unless you change it into Republic of North Macedonia - GStojanov (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Prespa agreement, ‘[t]he short name of the Second Party shall be "North Macedonia"’. Libhye (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A, with this order:
• Macedonia (region)
• North Macedonia
• Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
• Macedonia (Greece)

I definitely think the region should be first in the order, whereas I'm not as sure about the order of the remaining three. Orser67 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A, with the following order:

1. Macedonia (region)
2. Macedonia (Greece)
3. North Macedonia
4. Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Make it similar to Ireland (disambiguation), Sudan (disambiguation) and Korea (disambiguation), where they have the region first, followed by modern states, followed by historical entities. As for the order of North Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece), I think it should be ordered alphabetically based on the English language, with Macedonia (Greece) first in order to avoid conflict. -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, as I agree with comments of Fut. Perf. If you have to chose list order then country > kingdom > region in Greece > historical region. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B, because UN Security Council has not yet officially approved the Prespa Agreement. Namely, according to Article 3 of the UN Security Council Resolution 845 from 18 June 1993, after the Secretary-General reports on the resolution of the differences between the two parties, the UN Security Council would "resume consideration of the matter in the light of the report". So, the UN Security Council Resolution 845 is still open, and the name issue is not yet closed as far the United Nations is concerned. ObjectiveBoy (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC) — ObjectiveBoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option A per many reasons above. Neutral on order. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, and the order per Fut.Per. and FlavrSavr's comments.-Виолетова (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Option B - Gordi (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC) — Gordi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B, and the order per Fut.Per. and FlavrSavr's comments. GjorgjiP (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC) — GjorgjiP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B - The new name is not well accepted by the citizens of R. Macedonia. Filip M (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Filip M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Discussion (disambiguation)

• I agree with
  Michail and Despotak about the order. It is the same as we do with other disabiguation articles regarding wider regions. Fut.Perf. and FlavrSavr have pointed out that this disambiguation page differed from others because in this case user interest was obviously tilted toward the country. I will counter this by saying that when the country was named "Macedonia", it's natural for readers to search for "Macedonia" when looking for the country article. Howerver, now that the name has changed and there is a geographic identifier, the country no longer monopolises the name. Thus the situation becomes a lot more like the "Korea" disabmiguation page. --Antondimak (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Maybe it's too late, but I would like to make a small suggestion. Could we modify it from "
  Republic of Macedonia", maybe with an additional link similar to (see: Macedonia naming dispute)? --Antondimak (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That, to me, would seem to give undue weight to the position that anything ever named “Macedonia” could only ever be Greek (or Greek-ish, but certainly not Slavic.) Like it or not, a sovereign country calling itself Republic of Macedonia existed. That Greece insisted on (and many countries and international organizations accepted) a “former Yugoslav” clarifying prefix for official communications does not negate the existence of the country. —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it existed, but it was known under both names. We don't want to be partisan against Greece, we accept that Kosovo is partially recognised. We shoudl accept that North Macedonia's name was partially recognised. --Antondimak (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don’t care about the order (or the phrasing), but I can see how this might lead to edit wars (if it hasn’t already.) But I don’t see any easily explainable objective standard based on human judgement calls about the importance of the different entities. Would a purely technical solution be feasible? E.g., is it possible to retrieve the frequency of links clicked on the dab page and strictly order the entries by that? —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know pretty well what the relative reader interest in each article is, based on page clicks (it's country > ancient > the others, each by a very wide margin [1]). What we don't know with as much certainty is how many of the readers who enter "Macedonia" in the search box really want to go to which of the four. There'd be an easy (if somewhat unconventional) way of measuring it: Create four temporary redirect pages (let's say "Macedonia dab redirect 1", "2" and so on), each redirecting to one of the four target articles, then pipe each of the four dab entries through one of these redirects. Make sure these redirects are not linked to from anywhere else. After a few weeks, look at the pageview statistics for just these four redirects. Those figures would tell you exactly how many readers went to the dab page and then chose which of the four targets. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not directly linked to the above, but I believe we should include Socialist Republic of Macedonia and FYROM in another paragraph Former Entities for example for more clarity.--APG1984 (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SR Macedonia could be added to that, but FYROM = Republic of Macedonia = North Macedonia = Macedonia (same continuous entity, different names) so this should be just one listing I think ("Swaziland" isn't considered a former entity). --Local hero ^talk 15:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For current usage of respective terms for the people of Republic of North Macedonia, see the reliable sources list.

What should people from North Macedonia be called? The selected term shall be used as a short form instead of the official term "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia", when nationality is required by the Wikipedia manual of style (such as in lead paragraphs of person biographies), and is irrespective of people's ethnicity.

• Option A: The people from North Macedonia should be called "North Macedonian(s)".
• Option B: The people from North Macedonia should be called "Macedonian(s)".

Survey (nationality)

• Option B, as per the emergent practice of reliable external sources, which follow the stipulations of the Prespa agreement, and also per the principle of conservative Wikipedia usage (don't force a change unless there's clear evidence that usage outside Wikipedia has also changed). There's also no disambiguation issue (since there's no other state on earth that would have a "South", "East", "West" or whatever other "Macedonian" nationality, so a sentence of the form "XYZ is a Macedonian football player" remains just as unproblematic as it was before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B in this format: the nationality, for for private individuals, should be 'Macedonian'. However the term should not link to
  blah) 19:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Option A – seeing as my original vote has not garnered support, I am switching my vote to Option A as a second-best alternative. I find it more appropriate to use the term 'North Macedonian(s)' as a descriptive name as opposed to the current practice of linking the term Macedonian(s) with
  blah) 14:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: I would be happy to change my vote to B if, as Argean most recently suggested, the official policy of Wikipedia changes to my original proposal of linking 'Macedonian' to

blah) 01:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Option B. The Prespa Agreement states that the nationality remains Macedonian (or citizen of North Macedonia), but never North Macedonian. — Tom^(T2ME) 20:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A, as it is the only one that is unambiguous. Common use isn’t everything, as we can see with Republic of Ireland. That’s not the most commonly used term for the sovereign state, but it is the most unambiguous. —ThorstenNY (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B as per
  NPOV policy (Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them) but also as borderline culturally insensitive. The "ethnicization" of the issue that some contributors brought up is a red herring to obscure the fact that Albanians, Turks, Roma, etc, also, never agreed to be referred to as „North Macedonians“. Furthermore, there is no „South Macedonian nationality“ to disambiguate with. --FlavrSavr (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Neither A, nor B separately, while both are acceptable, depending on the context. Jingiby (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A As a solution to avoid the lengthy, though necessary use of the term "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", exactly as neweurope.eu states ("New Europe will describe the country's citizens as North Macedonians hoping to avoid the term "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia"). "Macedonian" cannot be used alone to describe nationality anymore (in terms of citizenship, not ethnicity) and will cause further confusions with the ethnic group in English usage (since the geographic compound of the name). "North Macedonian(s)" stems from the country's new name and covers all citizens of North Macedonia regardless of ethnicity (including Albanians, Turks, etc. which make up a great percentage of the country's population, the reason the country is officially bilingual). Regardless of the Agreement, Wikipedia focuses on common usage, something that "North Macedonian(s)" is eventually coming to and has already been used to describe the citizens (e.g. deutschland.de article "Based on the Franco-German model").StevenHal (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — StevenHal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B. It doesn't seem to be a mistake that "North Macedonian" is excluded from the Prespa agreement. It gives us "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" for nationality. From this, it seems reasonable to deduce that "Macedonian" is acceptable terminology. Regardless of this agreement, however, "Macedonian" is now (and for the foreseeable future) the most common usage. If there is any ambiguity, which should be very limited since there is no other Macedonian nationality, "North" can be added. --Local hero ^talk 20:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A as per StevenHal. --Despotak (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A as per StevenHal. If however we see in the future that common usage goes heavily in the other way we should revert it, but I worry that the current system we are working with doesn't allow for such corrections, so I will consider changing my vote. --Antondimak (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B For the time being, I am convinced that the agreement was meant to give the nationality "Macedonian", as a simplification of the longer name. Furthermore, that the leadership of the Albanian community wanted it to be referred as "Macedonian". Trusting the people who worked to reach this agreement, knowing the possible consequences, I think we should abide by their decisions, as most English publications have. --Antondimak (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B is the only reasonable option at the moment. The context that the term is used in wikipedia has not changed (e.g. nationality in biographies per
  future use are not consistent with the rules that govern this RfC according to withstanding ARBCOM decisions. --Argean (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment. Since the RfC is heading to a closure with various levels of consensus, I would like to bring back to the table

People of North Macedonia, since many editors bring up the issue of the recognition of ethnic minorities in North Macedonia. I don't agree with the argument that the actual name should encompass all minorities, since this does not happen with all other multiethnic states/nations, or countries with large ethnic minorities, but the creation of such an article is a good idea to address the multiethnic character of the state, which is also recognized by North Macedonia's constitution. The name of the people could then be linked to the article of the country, the article of the ethnic group, or this newly created article, depending on context. --Argean (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment

blah) 01:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Option A. because option B is very confusing if used to describe Albanians, Turks and other North Macedonian people who are not ethnic Macedonians. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A It is the simplest way of referring to something/someone from North Macedonia without causing confusion. Dash9Z (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Some people think that there exist two options for the citizenship, i.e., it is either "Macedonian" or "citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". However, the citizenship is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", according to (a) the Prespa agreement, (b) the modified constitution of North Macedonia, and (c) all official travel documents. If the citizenship were "Macedonian", then there would be no reason to put "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" in all these aforementioned documents, because it's obvious that the citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia are citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia. The fact that the citizenship is neither "Macedonian" nor "North Macedonian" is a result of a compromise between the two countries, North Macedonia and Greece. We have to respect that two countries made an agreement after 27 years. We should not try to introduce more problems. It's clear that people in both countries do not agree with this compromise, the vast majority is not happy, but it is a step towards peace in Balkans. If people all over the world used the official term FYROM to refer to North Macedonia the last 27 years, maybe, it wouldn't be necessary for North Macedonia to change its constitutional name. The reason for this change is that Greece was not convinced that a solution with two names (Macedonia for internal use and North Macedonia for international use) would work because of what happened with FYROM. Please take seriously this issue and respect people on both countries. Otherwise, any abuse of the term "Macedonian" may result in more problems between the two countries in the near future. People in North Macedonia need a name that identifies them, which means uniquely. The name "Macedonian" does not identify them, because there are people with different identities that are called Macedonians. This is not my personal opinion. This is the opinion of people in both countries, North Macedonia and Greece, and this is the reason for the name dispute for almost 30 years. It's up to us if we want to have peace in Balkans. Moreover, the name "Macedonian" does not identify Albanians in North Macedonia. Albanians wanted to remove completely the term Macedonia from the citizenship, and this is the reason for the additional clarification in the constitution. Last but not least, the argument that wikipedia uses common names and not official names is vague, for the simple reason that if wikipedia uses the incorrect term "Macedonian" then the majority of the world will use it because of wikipedia. In my opinion, wikipedia has to be a reliable source, and not a source of propaganda. There is no reason to believe that the people of North Macedonia will be called just Macedonians unless wikipedia and other sources with significant influence spread wrong information. The goal of wikipedia is to be neutral and objective, not biased. The use of the term "Macedonia" is inappropriate for Wikipedia.Peace in balkans (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — Peace in balkans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option A As a short form for the citizens of North Macedonia and because it's unambiguous as well. --StanProg (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A, because:

1) North Macedonian is simpler, clearer and less confusing as it is consistent with the name of the country. Particularly if the adjective used to describe the country is 'North Macedonian', having the nationality be different will lead to all sorts of awkwardly inconsistent constructions like North Macedonian government but Macedonian government officials, North Macedonian film but Macedonian filmmakers, North Macedonian population but population of Macedonians etc., violating

WP:REMEMBER

.

2)

WP:REMEMBER mandates the principle of least astonishment

. Most people would expect a person from North Macedonia to be called a North Macedonian.

3) North Macedonian is completely unambiguous while Macedonian will be highly ambiguous in many use cases, as it could also mean the ethnicity or the regional identity. Since many North Macedonians are not Macedonians and many Macedonians are not North Macedonians, making the distinction will make everything clearer.

4) Since the official nationality is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" and, for Albanian citizens, may be listed as "citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" [1], 'North Macedonian' and 'Macedonian' are both equally formally inaccurate, so it makes sense to use the former one which is simpler.

5) Option A is consistent with the example of North Korea, where the official nationality is Korean, but Wikipedia uses North Korean, which is clearer and less ambiguous. --Kkyriakop (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — Kkyriakop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Option B - as its in line with the Prespa agreement, continues the current practice on Wikipedia to describe Albanians, Turks and other people from the country who are its citizens and its not
  WP:CRYSTAL like option A.Resnjari (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option A: Akin to the concerns raised by
  WP:COMMONNAME, and it is not our place to predict this. Yet, one must be chosen over the other, and the reason I mentioned earlier seems sensible enough distinction to me. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B...the other option is clearly incorrect and offensive. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. We should do that which is least likely to result in years of endless complaints about Wikipedia's practices, and that is to align ourselves as closely as possible with the provisions of the Prespa agreement. – The agreement doesn't even mention the term North Macedonian, and the term Macedonian is expressly allowed in reference to the people of North Macedonia. Libhye (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A, for consistency with the country name and since option B is ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A, for consistency with the country name. --Sharouser (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A. I think we're
  WP:NAMECHANGES
  has had time to bed down yet. So we should remain open to revising this in the future. But I see North Macedonia in the same bracket as South Korea or East Timor, where the ethnicity is Macedonian, Korean or Timorese, but general people from the country are North Macedonian, South Korean or East Timorese.

The contrivance "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia" from the Prespa Agreement - assuming that's intended to be a single term including the slash - should never be used except when explicitly discussing official terminology. Kahastok talk 10:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A, for consistency with the country name. Xaris333 (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B per the agreement and usage in reliable sources per others. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C "People from North Macedonia" to avoid the tyranny and divisiveness of demonyms and go for precision. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A purely for reasons of consistency and to avoid confusion Weatherextremes (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A. "Macedonians" can include people from the parts of the region that aren't part of North Macedonia, and it excludes people living in North Macedonia who are Albanians, Arabs, etc. Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B per Prespa agreement. It's simple, and a survey cannot change the agreement. Wikipedia should not try to invent, but document. sliceofcodes (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC) — sliceofcodes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option A because Macedonian/s refers to the ethnic Macedonians and if is used and for the all citizens of North Macedonia will be very confusing for the readers. Make an article on North Macedonians that will include all ethnic groups who live in North Macedonia (Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Romani, Serbs, Bosniaks, Aromanians, Bulgarians etc.)--APG1984 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A B could refer to all of Macedonia. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 07:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B per Prespa agreement, plus, it is what RS are moslty using as far as I can understand. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A for consistency with the country name. Any other choice will result in endless policing and discussions as editors will use North Macedonian in good faith anyway. --Azeryion (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — Azeryion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B there's no any other national Macedonian identity. National identity should have more rights than regional identities. MacedońskaKrewetka (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — MacedońskaKrewetka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Option B the Prespa agreement gives two options: Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia / Macedonian. The 1st option is too lengthy and can be used as an alternative for those citizens of NM who don't want to be associated with the Macedonian ethnic group.But as default Macedonian can be used in wikipedia -- Stevepeterson (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A per
  WP:Common standpoint, they are not. Separately, I also don't like the idea of picking Option B for now. Are commenters we propose that seriously considering we will be willing to do this all over again? When does it stop being "for now" and when it start being "forever"? I can't wrap my head around that. Let's just call a spade a spade. It would be so odd if I said: "they are from North Macedonia; that makes them North Macedonian... for now." I don't get why saying that the citizens of North Macedonia are called Macedonians "for now" makes any bit of sense. I suggest we put this to rest and pick for the present and near future the option that is both short and not confusing: That's option A. Also, leave it unlinked per Argean below. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 03:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option A per much of the above and, well,
  WP:Common sense. "Macedonians" is a larger-scope ethnonym even when confined to modern-day people.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B, as it the way and free self declaration to the vast majority of the people in the country, the other one besides it is imposed it is completely artificially and non-existent in the every day life and it is offensive. - Македонец (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B The agreement clearly stipulates the use of 'Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia' and does not even mention the use of 'North Macedonian'. The former is not the same as the simple 'Macedonian' but is much farther from 'North Macedonian'. The possible ambiguity between 'Macedonian' used as nationality with 'Macedonian' as regional designation for other people from the region of Macedonia (e.g. Greece or Bulgaria) is a very weak argument because these people are described by their respective nationalities (e.g. Greek or Bulgarian) rather than the regional designation. So to say, this might have been a problem had people from other countries come out to self-identify as 'Macedonian' by nationality even though a simple wikification could easily solve the problem in that case as well (
  original research.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B per Prespa Agreement and reality. I agree with Fut.Per. comment. MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Nationality is either Macedonian(s) or a citizen of Republic of North Macedonia. Please do not use North Macedonian(s). That is offensive to ethnic Macedonians. GStojanov (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A primarily to avoid confusion. Orser67 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, While people may be ethnically Macedonian, they are citizens of other countries, such as Greece or Albania. They should be called Greek Macedonians or Albanians of Macedonian origin, etc., This should theoretically limit confusion. -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A seems logical. If the disambiguation page exists for "Macedonia" then obviously this one should follow the same logic.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A It is less confusing. As long as the ethnic Macedonian ("slavic" speaking North Macedonians remain "Macedonians" of course)--Lepourquoipas (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B This option is in order with Prespa Agreement, as other term in option A is not stated in that agreement and it is debatable and more importantly it is not confirmed by any major institution and/or does not have any scientific papers regarding this, so Wikipedia will take a stand in near future for this term, which clearly breaks rule of original research. Additionally, did anybody notice that CIA Factbook make changes for country North Macedonia, but still use only Macedonian as adjective and nationality of the people who live in Macedonia, besides their ethnic origin. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. Legal justification: The Article 1(12) of the Prespa Agreement requires amendment to Article 49 of the Constitution of Republic of Macedonia. In compliance with the Prespa Agreement, on 11 January 2019, the National Parlament of Republic of Macedonia adopted the amendment to the Article 49 (i.e., Amendment 36) to the Constitution of Republic of Macedonia. The first sentence of this amendment explicitly mentions "Macedonian people" by stating: "The Republic protects, guarantees and nurtures the peculiarities, historical and cultural heritage of the Macedonian people". Since the Prespa Agreement was ratified by the National Parlament of Hellenic Republic on 25 January 2019, it means that Greece has officially recognized the new Article 49, thus officially recognizing "Macedonian people" (i.e., Macedonians) in Republic of Macedonia. ObjectiveBoy (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC) — ObjectiveBoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B, but we should revisit the issue, if we see that—contrary to the provisions of the Prespa Agreement, the clear position of North Macedonia, and the concessions of the Greek side—"North Macedonian" prevails and becomes the common term.Yannismarou (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B -Виолетова (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B - Gordi (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC) — Gordi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B Filip M (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Filip M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option A. It is the only unambiguous option of the two that are given. Nationality [2] is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state. The state in this case is called "North Macedonia" by the UN since 14 February 2019, which renders "North Macedonian" (its adjectival form) the natural choice for the respective nationality, for any purpose other than official. Besides, any appeal to Article 1.3.b of the bilateral agreement of June 2018 between this state and the Hellenic Republic, which defines the examined nationality as "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", is irrelevant in this context, as the purpose of usage of the discussed term in Wikipedia is not official. Astrophysician1 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC) — Astrophysician1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option Ahistorically linguistically genetically the term Macedonia should not be used to describe the newly named NATO statelet but given the abhorrent circumstances, let it be North Macedonia in order to differentiate from the authentic province of Macedonia of Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esparcadia (talk • contribs) 10:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Most people will never see a passport/ID of North Macedonia and they will never try to learn the history of North Macedonia or the preferences of people. By listening to country's name, it's natural to think that the people of North Macedonia are North Macedonians. Why different names for the country, the people, the state-associated entities and for the rest? They all feel wrong to me. All these are for sure explained with the Prespa agreement for political reasons and that's great, but if wikipedia will not adopt the "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" which is the reason for this rfc, then any official restrictions about North Macedonian do not restrict wikipedia either. We cannot expect 8 billion people to read the Prespa agreement and figure out when they are allowed to use Macedonian, when North Macedonian, why of North Macedonia is correct and if North Macedonian is wrong. They will just use North Macedonian for everything because is natural, for the same reason that they used Macedonia and not F.Y.R.O.M.. People will forget the Prespa agreement the next years, and North Macedonian will dominate. North Macedonian is the only option for everything unrelated to the ethnic group. Mir suaar (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC) — Mir suaar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option A. Using Macedonian(s) instead of North Macedonian(s) is a bit like using Africans and expecting it to be understood as referring to people from South Africa only, or using Irish and expecting it to be understood as referring to people from Northern Ireland only. Place Clichy (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Using Macedonian(s) is like using Americans and expecting it to be understood as referring to people from the United States only. In both cases, there is a long tradition of using the technically-ambiguous term, and in both cases, this does not lead to any appreciable number of misunderstandings. Libhye (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a fallacious analogy. It is natural to refer to people from the United States of America as American, because the name of the country is America, just like people from the United States of Mexico are Mexican. Further, American is also the adjectival form and the form used to refer to state-associated entities. The word America is indeed ambiguous (since it is both a country and a continent) but the nationality matches the name of the country. In this case, the country is called North Macedonia and the term 'North Macedonian' will most likely be used as both an adjective and for state-associated entities, so referring to the nationality of 'Macedonian' would not match either of these AND be ambiguous with other meanings of the word Macedonian which are related to things actually called Macedonia (the region of Greece, the ancient Kingdom, the region of Bulgaria, the broader geographic region and the ethnicity). It would therefore lead to much confusion and many appreciable misunderstandings. Kkyriakop (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A: The people from North Macedonia should be called "North Macedonian(s)". Since the country is called North Macedonia it goes without saying that its people should be called North Macedonian(s). Use of the word Macedonian would allow the part to present itself as the whole (in the sense that there are Macedonians who do not live/originate from/belong to the country called 'North Macedonia'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moschova (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC) — Moschova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option A: I think that people from a place called North Macedonia should be called North Macedonians. Thanks! (yes I am greek)--Φίλιππος Α.Δ, (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC) — Φίλιππος Α.Δ, (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Discussion (nationality)

• About
  User:Philly boy92 (Michail's) proposal of using "Macedonian" but linking it to the ethnicity rather than to the country page: I'm afraid that suggestion is self-defeating really, because an ethnicity simply isn't a nationality. And our biography guidelines are crystal-clear on the matter that we should routinely describe people in their bios by their nationality first, not by their ethnicity. There's no reason not to link that description to the country, just as we do with every other country on earth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

'Macedonian' linking to

blah) 19:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It seems this discussion further demonstrates how confusing it is to have Macedonian be the adjective of North Macedonia. Right now nobody is sure how this will shake out, so I favor clarity over ambiguity. If (!!!) RS clearly gravitate towards Macedonian over the coming weeks, we’ll know and I’ll change my vote. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your point

Michail and it's valid, so I would suggest as an alternative to leave the term unlinked when not necessary, e.g. we don't have to link both "x is a Macedonian football player, ... playing for the North Macedonian National team". This requires further discussion, I agree. --Argean (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I’m afraid such constructs would cause quite a bit of confusion, as it suggests — to anyone without prior special knowledge that “Macedonian” is supposed to be the adjective for “North Macedonia” — that being “Macedonian” is something that is somehow special, different or particularly noteworthy for a player of a North Macedonian national team. —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is not much different as a construct from "a Northern Irish athlete representing Ireland" which is something that I'm sure that I've heard before. I'm aware that I might becoming a bit annoying of trying to separate the name of the people from the name of the country (I'm so frustrated that they didn't go for an untranslated version like Moldova vs Moldavia, or Republika Srpska vs Serbia), but I can't see how people speaking the Macedonian language, and self-identifying as Macedonians, will incorporate an adjectival attribute before their name that will apply depending on context (ethnically Macedonian + nationally North Macedonian?), without creating confusion on who are the Macedonians after all... --Argean (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That right there Argean is why I crystal-ball-predict that, ultimately, the people of North Macedonia will come to accept the "North Macedonian" label, and come to terms with the loss of the individually "Macedonian" one. It may take 100 years for this change to happen, but I think that the complex way of having to describe themselves like this will eventually compel this shift. I could be wrong of course, I'm not saying I'm right, it is just the way I perceive it. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so daring in my predictions Wiz9999 for the same reasons I don't see Turkish Cypriots being called Northern Cypriots any time soon. Ethnic identity in regions like Balkans and the Middle East is very sensitive issue and the whole stability of such regions is based on the balance of self-identification and perserving the feeling of distinction among others. "North Macedonians" as a concept of national identity wouldn't be much more viable than the Bosnians one in the long term --Argean (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I always dare to predict ;) Life is just more interesting that way. You don't have to listen to my ramblings, often they are just mad ramblings. I hesitate to compare this to the

Cyprus dispute that is a far more serious point of contention, with the possibility of real conflict occurring in future. Sorry, but the Macedonian naming dispute is just not on the same scale. It was always going to be largely addressed by an agreement between Greece and "North Macedonia". The issue has not nearly built up to the seriousness of Cyprus and is largely just one based on entomology, identity, nationalism, and culture. The TRNC is backed directly by turkey, a NATO country, Cypriots in the south don't enjoy as much luxury as this. Not to mention the other states in the region with an interest in the situation, Greece, Russia, Israel, UK, EU, etc. The Bosnian identity example is more comparable, but still quite different to that of the Macedonia dispute. There is always the potential for Bosnia to self destruct, whereas Greece and "North Macedonia" would be incredibly unlikely to have ever come to actual blows over this. It may not seem this way, but it is just a fact that neither state has ever said anything meaningful to the effect. - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

And I dare to dream that people will stop having disputes over names or even borders, but at the same moment I'm trying to be realistic and see the whole picture. You've painted well the picture of Cyprus dispute, but on the other hand I think you are missing many points over the Macedonian one. Luckily, it's more than a century ago when

Macedonian Question led to 2 Balkan Wars, but don't you think that Balkans have too many irredentist claims for such a small region, and lots of "Greats" Albanias, Bulgarias, Serbias, etc, to be overlooked and disregarded as a potential destabilizing force? --Argean (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

On the contrary! I am well aware of the multitude of irredentist claims that much of the Balkan countries have over each other, and many of these are issues stemming back to long prior to WWI, as you exemplified with your mentioning of the Balkan wars. However, the situation in the Balkans at the moment is sort of akin to that of a post WWII east & west Europe as a whole. The yugoslav wars of the 1990s were a devastating conflict for the region, and no-one wants to see any violence flare up again. This is because, as with post WWI europe, any return to war would be so catastrophically destructive that it is just better to use diplomacy, all parties know that any conflict between them would devastate their own homelands and ultimately not be worth the effort (yes I know there are no nukes involved with regards to today's balkans unlike cold war era europe, but the capacity for large scale destruction and ethnic cleansing still remains high). Greece was not directly involved with the 90's conflicts, yes, but they followed those conflicts intensely and the lessons from the wars are not lost on the Greeks as a whole. Thus there is HUGE incentive for nations to cooperate right now, and work towards a peaceful relationship with their neighbors. The ongoing expansions of the EU and NATO are the most obvious manifestations of this trend, so long as radical elements in each state do not rise up to power. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish that Bosnia and Herzegovina was Switzerland in terms of national/ethnic identity and Albania was Austria in terms of willingness to join NATO and abide to their policies. But they are not. Trust me, as a Greek Macedonian that grew up near the borders and as an educated individual, I have a good picture of both the history and the current political issues of the region. But let's not turn this discussion to a political forum, I think we both made our point clear enough. --Argean (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very anxious about this and I would like to make the reasons for this known in case others would want to take them into account. I will actually argue against my current vote. There's a larger and more sensitive issue at play here, and I trust the diplomats' and lawmakers' assessment. Listening to them and to other experts, it's clear that North Macedonia is in an unstable state, and it will likely get worse soon. The country is in a state of polarisation and there is a nascent possibility of violence. There is currently talk about border changes in the area, and it's likely one will take place (between Serbia and Kosovo). In this climate, if there is a perception among many Macedonians belonging to the VMRO side that they have been betrayed, that everything is lost, violence could break out. The deal essentially giving the term "Macedonian" for the nationality was mainly to pacify that part of the population. Wikipedia is a major English language source. Even though it isn't supposed to influence, only reproduce what other do, it does anyway. So it plays a role in establishing common usage, which in turn plays a role in shaping the perception in North Macedonia, and therefore shaping the people's reaction. We can't know the future, but I'm very concerned. --Antondimak (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely share your concerns, Antondimak. However, we don’t know how this will shake out. It is also possible that ethnic Albanian citizens of North Macedonia will object to being called Macedonians (now that the country has a different, “non-ethnic” name) and accuse the majority of attempted “Macedonisation.” We just don’t know. We also don’t know how English-language RS will treat the issue: pragmatically or legalistically. My guess is the former, but we just don’t know. In the meantime, it seems pretty obvious which option is less ambiguous. Just imaging constructs such as “a Macedonian (but ethnically Albanian, not Macedonian) athlete” on some North Macedonian team. Huh? —ThorstenNY (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason I voted for "North Macedonia". About your point about Albanians though, I know that it was the Albanians too that pushed for the nationality to be called "Macedonian", so that they wouldn't be excluded if it were only an ethnic term. --Antondimak (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did. Zaev conceded on that point and is what secured Albanian votes for the name change in parliament. There was nothing about a geographic qualifier of "north" for citizens, nor does the Prespa agreement stipulate one.Resnjari (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The purely grammatical way this RfC is structured right now gives significant
  Wikipedia being a crystal ball. While we're in that territory, The Economist actually speculates it might take years for the state name to take hold, let alone the nationality. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• To address Kahastok's point, this in fact isn't like East Timor or South Korea. In this case, we are talking about a region with the same identity, but where there is political division. In this case, there isn't one Macedonian nation. Somebody from North Macedonia and South Macedonia would have completely different identities, the same way as people from Western, Northern and Eastern Thrace. --Antondimak (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. And I'll be quite upfront about the fact that I'm making an vaguely-informed guess that may turn out to be completely wrong. But my expectation is that, for most native English-speakers, the parallels between the situations will be more significant than the differences. Kahastok talk 11:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• About New Europe StevenHal Despotak Antondimak - it was the first publication to refer to the people as „North Macedonians“, even before the official announcements, and even suggesting to their journalists. I was not surprised, however, to see their owner and editorial team being almost entirely Greek. However, after that article there is still some caution even in their ranks as this article shows - „It remains to be seen whether journalists covering the region will actually accept and begin to use the adjective “North Macedonian” when writing about events in the country.“. It is not a reliable source. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that source, I'm not basing my opinion on it, it was an example. I was pretty clear on what I said. "North Macedonian" is the best option for a) Consistency with the country's name b) Avoiding the lengthy and impractical, though necessary term of the Prespa Agreement (which basically renders the usage of "Macedonian" for describing nationality, officially obsolete, in a way it wouldn't create major backlash to North Macedonia's public), c) Accurately describe ALL citizens of North Macedonia (an overwhelmingly multicultural and multiethnic country with Albanian as an official state language) regardless of ethnicity d) Avoiding major confusions and ambiguity that arises both within the very country (nationality-ethnicity), as well as between the regional people of Macedonia (Greece) and North Macedonia, as others have stated. --StevenHal (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I raised concerns over the neutrality and reliability of that source quite early. ([3]) --Argean (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Macedonian Albanians, and when it's necessary to refer to ethnicity/origin (although not required by the MoS) we do so, as here, or here (randomly selected). This is not an exception, because we follow the same style in many other cases, such as footballer Bixente Lizarazu who is ethnically Basque and nationally French, or MMA fighter Khabib Nurmagomedov who is ethnically Avar and nationally Russian. On the contrary using the term "North Macedonian" as an introductory term to someone's bio, will probably create a new ambiguity, and in many instances the need to further specify ethnicity not only for Albanians, but also for ethnic Macedonians. Now imagine introducing a sentence that it would read "x is a North Macedonian of Macedonian descent/origin/ethnicity". Now this is confusing. --Argean (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Argean, we've had this lengthy discussion before and ended up nowhere. You seem to be desperately trying to convince us that a North Macedonian citizen (ethnic Albanian) would cause more confusion than a Macedonian citizen (ethnic Albanian) even though a Macedonian (ethnic group) and Macedonian (Greek regional people) exist at the same time! This is greatly problematic, especially now that the name has changed (and reference to the citizens naturally follows a country's name in the English language), and will most likely lead to unprecedented confusion and need of specifications in the future. --StevenHal (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how you call problematic the logic of making the less possible disruption to an established consensus instead of introducing new terms that seem to me as a desperate effort to fabricate a concept that goes much further of serving the goals of wikipedia. Macedonian Greeks will always be Greeks, and I'm really glad that finally there is an agreement that distinguishes that the identity and history of Macedonian Greeks is completely different to the one of their neighbors to their North, something its' importance many people fail to recognize. --Argean (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable, fundamental changes have just been made such as the CHANGING of the country's name (and many other aspects behind it) and constitution, as well as the significant Albanian minority officially gaining a more influential role and presence in the country, yet you speak of disrupting something established and introducing new terms as if nothing has happened these last few months. For reasons other users, and I, have already explained, I strongly insist on what I said, believing it will solve many issues while being accurate at the same time. Finally, you claim you are glad the agreement distinguishes Macedonians (Greeks) from Macedonians of North Macedonia while supporting the (officially invalid) usage of a nationality that does the EXACT OPPOSITE. --StevenHal (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was never an advocate of

negationism. Trying to deal with all the sides of the dispute that are not being resolved by the agreement, in a way that will make our lives easier inside and outside of wikipedia, is one thing, but failing to recognize the potential benefits of a finally accomplished agreement to systematically eradicate misconceptions over history and identity is a stubborn mindset that I will never abide to. --Argean (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I honestly hope you are not accusing me of these things, because this is clearly not my intent, as I have provided, and continue to do so, clear arguements and reasons for supporting what I claim. I don't see where you are going with this. Disagreeing with me is one thing, accusing me, indirectly, of having a "stubborn mindset" in such a snobbish way is something I wouldn't have expected from you. --StevenHal (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know each other so I don't think that we should have any expectations. I will not follow the blame game that started in this very row of edits and certainly will not play the card of

WP:AAGF. --Argean (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It's true we don't know each other but you did cry "personal attacks" on a couple of discussions we had for otherwise trivial and laughable "offenses" I made, so I assumed you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to freely try to insult someone like that, just because he has a different opinion. Maybe it's your way of arguing, who knows. Have a good day. --StevenHal (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argean:"North Macedonian of Macedonian descent/origin/ethnicity" That is EXACTLY what the Prespa agreement does though, except with the less controversial "North Macedonia" instead of "North Macedonian". If I just swap the order of how you just said what you said: Now imagine introducing a sentence that it would read "x is a person of Macedonian descent/origin/ethnicity of North Macedonia", this is in full alignment with Prespa. The only thing we are really doing differently is applying the more naturally linguistically modified term (in English) of "North Macedonian" which allows us (again in English sentences) to place the order in the way that you specified. I didn't draft Prespa, but I do think its adherence is confusing. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999: Still, can't follow your example and this is EXACTLY what the Prespa Agreement does NOT do, since it doesn't mention the term North Macedonian not even once. Do we ever need to use sentences like "a Russian from Russia", or "a French(man) from France" for Russians/French that are both ethnically and nationally Russian/French to distinguish them from their compatriots that are not? And to make it even more descriptive, do we have to mention that "x is a Bosnian of Bosniak ethnicity"? Wikipedia MoS requires one term for nationality and we need the one that is more appropriate and does not introduce new problems. --Argean (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is confusing North Macedonian of Macedonian ethnicity?, for me is isn't at all, there are people from North Macedonia (North Macedonians) who are of Macedonian, Albanian, Turkish etc. ethnicity. Also, in Bosnia there are Bosnians of Bosniak, of Serbian, of Croatian etc. ethnicity. In North Korea there are North Koreans of Korean, of Han Chinese, of Japanese etc. ethnicity. Sashko1999 (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely why the demonym should not direct to

blah) 13:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I agree, this thing with the demonyms who linking to the dominant ethnic group of the countries is wrong, I said that before and we opened a discussion

ethnic Macedonians, there are many other cases like that, for example the demonym Russian linking to Russians and ethnic Russians in Russia are 81%, the demonym German link to the ethnic Germans and the ethnic Germans in Germany are 80%, etc. etc. Sashko1999 (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not a problem of directing the demonym to the right page, but rather changing the demonym to suit the new name. A demonym according to Wikipedia itself, "is a word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place, which is derived from the name of that particular place.". This makes it pretty obvious what the demonym should be, in agreement, also, with the demonyms of other countries, states, cities, regions, etc. bearing directional names. --StevenHal (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's very logical if someone is from North Macedonia to be called North Macedonian, doesn't metter if by ethnicity he/she is Macedonian, Albanian, Turk or whatever.

@

Philly boy92: As I said before I'm siding with the argument that this needs to be adressed and indeed an article on "People from North Macedonia" seems a sensible approach. --Argean (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:REMEMBER should take precedent. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:REMEMBER was to be applied and such oversimplification was the preferable solution. You say that people will assume that “North Macedonia” and “Macedonians” are 2 unrelated entities, but still you seem to forget the fact that Macedonia and Macedonians are already 2 different entities. Well, I guess that this problem can be easily solved if we remove the factor "Macedonians" from the equation, but I don’t think that we are here to provide people lessons on self-identification so they can fit our expectations on appropriate terminology. And honestly do you really think that a “North Macedonian of Macedonian origin” is an expression that will not confuse the readers, or do we have to explicitly suggest the editors to avoid using ethnic terms? --Argean (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess we’re both missing each other’s points, Argean. Yes, I do claim that the wording of “a Northern Irish athlete representing Ireland” is not (really) confusing. The phrase uses two different terms for two different entities. (People not familiar with the existence of all-Ireland teams might be surprised by the circumstances of people from different sovereign states playing on the same “national” team, but the wording is not what gives rise to questions here.) On your second point, on the contrary, I am all-too-aware of the difference between Macedonian ethnicity and (North) Macedonian citizenship. That’s even more reason to use one term for the ethnicity and another term for citizenship. None of the supposedly confusing examples you have given elsewhere seem as confusing to me as “a Macedonian athlete of Macedonian ethnicity playing for North Macedonia.” Others have pointed out that Prespa does not prescribe a short form for citizenship, only a long form, which, however, is completely impractical for most article about people from N.M. So we essentially have to create our own short form. Should we pick one that is intuitive and unambiguous or one that is confusing and ambiguous? —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThorstenNY Well I guess we do, since it seems that we have different understanding of some ideas, but that's fine. Possibly coming from different backgrounds means that we are seeing things from different perspectives and thus failing to follow each others train of thought. I will not go back to the Northern Irish paradigm and your interpretation of it, where honestly you completely lost me, going from the two different entities to the same nation, which is already one of the two entities, and yet being also a sovereign state which is a different entity, but anyway. I will say that I still fail to see your reasoning on what has created in the present case the need to separate the two terms of ethnicity and nationality/citizenship, especially in such a way that one of the terms (North Macedonians) contains the other (Macedonians), without the former group of people being part of the latter, but rather the opposite. You keep raising the issue of being practical, and yet you are still avoiding my most practical question by referring to the content of the problem, but then you go back again to present the issue as a practical problem that we have to deal and create our own short form so yeah I don't think that you are really trying very hard to convince me, are you? --Argean (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sliceofcodes: Please do not spread misinformation. The Prespa Agreement DOES NOT state the nationality is "Macedonian", but rather changes that to "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" (indivisible) which will replace the "Macedonian" on ID's, passports etc. It's obvious this was done as a step to stop the usage of "Macedonian" when referring to nationality, but in a more moderate and neutral manner in order to avoid major conflict and backlash, and not to establish it, as it was already simply "Macedonian" before the Agreement. So not only is the nationality "Macedonian" officially defunct, but will create major confusion and issues if it is used now that the name is "North Macedonia". --StevenHal (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:UCRN. It's shorthand for "Citizen of North Macedonia." Otherwise, what should we refer to ethnic minorities in North Macedonia as? Maybe you have a better answer than I in this regard. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 14:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@MJL: Well, with the terms that were used previously, those being Macedonian Albanian, Macedonian Turkish, Macedonian Serb etc. Those are also their self-identifying terms. Except from some fringe Albanian parties protesting, but ultimately accepting the Prespa Agreement, the ovewhelming majority of non-ethnic Macedonians do not identify as 'North Macedonian'. You can ask @Resnjari: who is an Albanian from (North) Macedonia, I believe. Also, this section is related to biographies of living persons, and most of them will refer to ethnic Macedonians, not to non-ethnic Macedonians. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parents and grandparents are from the old country, i'm an Aussie :) . But back to this, really there has not been an issue regarding the use of the word Macedonian except among certain fringe elements of the Albanian public or politicians. The big Albanian parties supported the agreement in whole and opposition came from fringe firebrands like Ziadin Sela who a few years ago got a few knocks to the face during the storming of parliament due to his calls for federation and other statements challenging the cohesion of the state etc. Interestingly he has ceased with those these days. Anyway post 2001, Albanians have been largely been integrated into the country and its civic and political life. Sure there are issues, but they overall relate to bread and butter issues of employment and corruption in the country. Simple terminology is ok for here. We have had Macedonian work fine for many years now with no complaints. The two countries struck an agreement and it provides for the formula we use here. Why make it cumbersome and complex?Resnjari (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why make it cumbersome and complex? Actually the Prespa Agreement isn't helping us much when it comes to making the "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" (unbreakable, undividable) into something more manageable that can be used in Wikipedia for encyclopedic terms. We are called to choose a short form for it while taking in account that the country to which they are citizens, is now called North Macedonia, not Macedonia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia is mandatory on travel documents, it obviously isn't meant to be used in running text. The Prespa agreement explicitly allows the use of Macedonian to refer to the people of North Macedonia (Article 7(3)). Libhye (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect! The Agreement only allows this term when it comes to nationality: Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia on official documents for all purposes when referring to the nationality of the people. The Agreement doesn't explicitly tells us that we can use a shorter form. It is up to us to decide whether the short form, for Wikipedia's needs, has to be Macedonian or North Macedonian. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Libhye is right: Article 7 (3) - when reference is made to North Macedonia, Macedonian denotes its territory, language, people and their attributes, with their own history, culture, and heritage, distinctly different from those of the Greek Macedonians. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect again. This article 7 has nothing to do with nationality, but about people and their language. The article's purpose is to establish that there are multiple Macedonian people in the region (Slavs and Greeks), and that the term Macedonian has multiple meanings and can refer to distinct cultures (Slavic for Slavs, Greek for Greeks), acknowledging that they are different to each other. Nothing more, nothing less. This article doesn't address nationality, is meant to address the monopolization of the term Macedonian which the extremists/nationalists from both sides claim for themselves. Article 7 establishes that no side has exclusive rights to the use of the term Macedonian for people and language. I don't know why people think people = nationality, because this is incorrect as these are two totally different concepts. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just quoting Kotzias' words But if you think I can make it so every citizen is called 'North Macedonian', I will ask you the following simple question: There is a resident of Skopje and he tells his girlfriend that he is "Macedonian". What do we do in this case? Will we set up a thought-police state that will put him in prison? What we said is that the citizens of this country have the right to self-determination [27]. I'll say it once more, I don't think wikipedia is some legal service trying to interpret or implement a legal document, and decide on our own about the correct terminology based on arbitrary criteria, even if they seem to be

MOS:IDENTITY puts extra weight on self-determination when there is inconsistency (which we don't even know yet if it will be the case). --Argean (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

For Wikipedia's purposes, we should have picked temporarily a name for the time being, and have agreed to call for a new RfC in 6 nonths, specifically for the nationality section, per

WP:CCC. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way since we are stuck with the legal definition of nationality, I'm just adding

WP:UKNATIONALS in the discussion as a relevant case indicating that wikipedia is not a legal service or border control checking peoples' passports to describe them correctly in terms of nationality. --Argean (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

None says tat Wikipedia is a legal service or border control. This RfC is meant to choose how to shorten the Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia because in its official form, is unusable for the project's needs. Thats all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely should'nt pick

WP:NAMECHANGES.--FlavrSavr (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

If we approach the issue per

WP:OR like you do, then I am afraid that both of the options ("Macedonian" and "North Macedonian), will have to be disregarded on WP:OR grounds, since, officially, the nationality is none of these two RfC terms and I am sure you know that. Whats the purpose of this RfC then, if WP:OR is your concern here? We should cancel the RfC voting and stick with "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" instead. Oh wait... --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not

self-identifying name them. So in a way, yes, I think that this RfC has started too early. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• @Greyjoy: The page has been moved here as you can see, which is the right place for discussion.

[In response to Peace in balkans]: Dimitrov did not say that the term Macedonian may only refer to the ethnic group and not to the entire population. According to the Prespa agreement, Macedonian may be used for the population of North Macedonia (Article 7(3)); there is nothing in the agreement restricting Macedonian to the ethnic group. Libhye (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say that because 60% of the people are "ethnic Macedonians" and they don't see problematic the term "Macedonian" for the citizenship too. But, Dimitrov clarified that the citizenship is not "Macedonian" and this is enough. Albanians did the same as explained for the simple reason that if you call someone "Macedonian" it's unclear if you mean in terms of ethnicity or citizenship. Albanians want this distinction to be clear, and that's why they don't like the term "Macedonians" for the citizenship. It's like you call "Romanian" someone from the Hungarian minority in Romania. It can be very offensive unless you make clear that you mean "citizen of Romania" which is the truth. Therefore, we cannot use the same name for both the citizenship and the ethnicity, especially since the name of the country is North Macedonia, and the term "Macedonian" sounds clearly the ethnicity. The Article 7(3) doesn't say that the citizenship is Macedonian, it just confirms what everybody says. Some people in North Macedonia can be called Macedonians, that's clear. But nothing in the agreement says that all people are Macedonians. Here, we talk about a neutral name for all people that makes a connection to the country, regardless their ethnicity. Peace in balkans (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that the Prespa agreement is right or wrong on this point; I am just saying that you are misrepresenting the agreement. Article 7(3) says that the term Macedonian may be used for the (entire) people of North Macedonia. You are free to express your dislike for that, but you don't get to claim that the agreement doesn't say that. As for Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, that is mandatory on travel documents, but it obviously can't be used in running text, and the agreement purposefully doesn't provide for the use of North Macedonian at all. So the population of North Macedonia may be referred to as the people of North Macedonia, North Macedonia's population, people in North Macedonia and the like, but they may also, according to the Prespa agreement, be referred to as Macedonians – even though some people might not like that (and might even take issue with the very fact that they are citizens of North Macedonia). Libhye (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* @Libhye, Argean, and Antondimak: Since you use the Article 7 to claim that the term "Macedonian" is correct, I will prove you with math that your claims are wrong. Indeed, Article 7 says that term "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" for the second party refer to the country, people etc. So let's assume that people shall be called "Macedonians" according to Article 7. This assumption implies that the country shall also be called "Macedonia" based on the same article (argument). But as you know the country is North Macedonia and this is clarified in the agreement. As you see, we ended up in a contradiction because of the wrong assumption that you make, which was that the people shall be called "Macedonians". The conclusion is that you cannot claim that the Article 7 clarifies that all people shall be called Macedonians based on Article 7. If you interpret the article 7 in this way, then the country is also called Macedonia which is certainly wrong. But, strictly mathematically speaking the agreement doesn't clarify if people can be or cannot be called "Macedonian". But it certainly clarified the nationality of people and it's not "Macedonian". @Libhye: I am sorry for moving your message here, but this is supposed to be the discussion page. Peace in balkans (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peace in balkans and SilentResident: Article 7 must be read in conjunction with Article 1 (3) (f), which is about which adjectives to use for North Macedonia. Article 1 (3) (f) doesn't mention North Macedonian at all, but establishes that no adjective but a construction with North Macedonia shall be used in certain cases, while in all other cases, the adjective mentioned in Article 7 may be used. Hence, Article 1 (3) (f) expressly allows the use of Macedonian in reference to the population of North Macedonia. Libhye (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's just your conclusion. Prespa Agreement separates the two articles for a reason. not to mix and match them to our likings. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Article 1(3f) clearly says that other adjectival usages,..., may be in line with article 7(3) and 7(4), which in turn describe that the terms "Macedonian" and "Macedonia" when used for the Second party (North Macedonia) denote its territory, language, people and their attributes. Basically it cannot be more explicit (but carefully phrased) that the term "Macedonian" may be used by people in North Macedonia to describe themselves. --Argean (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Argean: As you said the terms "Macedonian" and "Macedonia" denote its territory, ..., people, ... according to Article 7. If your conclusion/opinion is that based on this Article, it is clear that people are called "Macedonians", do you think that based on the same article the whole country can be called "Macedonia"? The answer is either "yes" or "no" for both people and country. Please read carefully, I don't ask if people in this country can be called "Macedonians", I ask if the rest of the world must call them "Macedonians" based on what the agreement says. Please consider article 7(5) which clearly states: "Nothing in this Agreement is intended to denigrate in any way, or to alter or affect, the usage by the citizens of either Party." This means that people in North Macedonia can still call their country "Macedonia" and themselves "Macedonians", and people in Greece can still call the country "FYROM" and so on. And this has been officially clarified by the Greek government. Here we talk about how the rest of the wolrd calls this country and the people of this country. Peace in balkans (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peace in balkans: The Prespa agreement offers the terms North Macedonia and Republic of North Macedonia in reference to the country, but it doesn't offer any alternative to Macedonian in reference to the population other than Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, which obviously isn't intended to be used in running text. So the only term the agreement offers for use in running text is Macedonian. That's not just my personal interpretation: the contracting parties themselves have made clear that the agreement's intention is for the term Macedonian to be used in running text in reference to the population of North Macedonia. Libhye (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides have implicitely agreed that North Macedonian is not to be used. Perhaps the Greek side has good reasons for it - maybe they've estimated that using the North/South Korea analogy would implicate a „South Macedonian nationality“ in the minds of many, which will raise very uncomfortable questions for Greece. The media there seem to be in uproar about this recent BBC article. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Libhye: Again you make assumptions that "the only term the agreement offers for use in running text is Macedonian", but I accept your opinion, even if it's wrong. I will not try to convince you about the truth because you have no arguments, you have only assumptions. It's certainly wrong that the name "Macedonian" will be used for the people.

@FlavrSavr: You also make assumptions that "Both sides have implicitly agreed that North Macedonian is not to be used", and I will not argue anymore due to lack of arguments. You make only assumptions.

@Libhye and FlavrSavr:To prove that your assumptions are wrong, for one more time, please read what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Greece) just reported to clarify this misleading interpretation about the agreement and especially about the term "North Macedonian". They explicitly said that the term "North Macedonian" is as correct as the term "Macedonian" for whatever is not related to the state. Please read my new message below regarding that. Thank you for your time. I am sure you will see the truth. Peace in balkans (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This whole discussion about the difference between the "ethnic" and "nationality" sense of "Macedonian" is a red herring, as are all the arguments by people above who !voted for "North Macedonian" on the ground of avoiding "ambiguity" with the ethnicity. The ethnic vs. national ambiguity of "Macedonian" is no more of a problem than that of "Greek", "Turkish", "German", "Russian" and any number of others. Almost all European nation states have the same ambiguity between the term for their citizens and the term for their majority ethnic group. That doesn't stop us from using these terms, and disambiguate them (as "ethnic X'ians" vs "X'ian citizens") only where needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair this case is different since North Macedonia is now pretty officially a multicultural state. So the comparison isn't that valid. --Antondimak (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference whatsoever how "officially" recognized that state of affairs is. The principle is the same: Not every Russian is a Russian, not every Turk is a Turk, not every German is a German, not every Macedonian is a Macedonian. No reader has ever had any problems with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

except that in those cases ‘Russian’, ‘German’ and ‘Turkish’ are the natural adjectives of ‘Russia’, ‘Germany’ and ‘Turkey’. The natural adjective for ‘Macedonia’ was ‘Macedonian; but that’s not the country’s name anymore. The natural adjective for ‘North Macedonia’ is ‘North Macedonian’.--

blah) 12:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

while "Burmese", "Swazi" and "East Timorese" are definitely not the natural adjectives for "Myanmar", "Eswatini" and "Timor-Leste" respectively (all of which are cases of renamed states). I'm afraid that we are completely missing the point right here --Argean (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've noticed a suspicious influx of biased users lately (i.e. "MacedonianBoy", "Македонец", "MacedońskaKrewetka" to name a few) contributing to this discussion. I obviously have no problem with people from North Macedonia voicing their opinion on this matter, but this should be definitely taken to account ultimately, as opinions are expressed more emotionally rather than logically. I also find it a bit misleading, especially in this nationality discussion, people stating "Macedonian per Prespa Agreement" as this is strikingly false as the Prespa Agreement changed the nationality FROM "Macedonian", and NOT TO "Macedonian". In reality neither "Macedonian" nor "North Macedonian" are officially correct; the real debate here, is as to what is more practical, logical, and easier for people to grasp, whilst accurate. That, in my opinion, is "North Macedonian" for consistency reasons, as well as differentiating between the different peoples of the region of Macedonia, as well as between citizens of North Macedonia (including ethnic minorities) and ethnic Macedonians, something that could create awful confusions if the nationality remains (CONTRARY to the Prespa Agreement) simply "Macedonian". --StevenHal (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, a single-purpose account talking about "suspicious influx" of biased users. Irony detector broken? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those first two have been on Wikipedia for years. I guess we ought to take into account which users are Greek as well. And the differentiation thing that keeps getting brought up is such a non-issue. We've had no problems differentiating for the past decade, so why are we inventing problems now? --Local hero ^talk 16:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• blah) 21:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Philly boy92: The remark in the UNTERM's country profile

says:

The second paragraph advocates that 'Macedonian' may be used in the context of 'Macedonian singer', 'Macedonian actor' or 'Macedonian writer' (examples of people's occupations) but not 'Macedonian prime minister', 'Macedonian finance minister' or 'Macedonian parliament speaker' (examples of people holding public offices that are exempted); 'Macedonian company', 'Macedonian association of artists' or 'Macedonian music band' (examples of private groups/entities) but not 'Macedonian government' or 'Macedonian parliament' (examples of public entities that are exempted); and 'Macedonian wine' or 'Macedonian traditional dish' (examples of objects/brands). For the examples where the second paragraph does not apply, the first paragraph advocates the use of the possessive construction 'of the Republic of North Macedonia' or 'of North Macedonia' and recommends that the adjectival references 'North Macedonian and 'Macedonian' may not be used.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

blah) 01:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

At the end, please note the difference between 'requires' and 'advocates'. The first is derived from a must clause and equates to a necessary condition for something to be correct (anything else is wrong), while the second is derived from a may clause and equates to a sufficiency condition for something to be correct (anything else is not always wrong).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can read here and here that Albanians wanted to remove completely the term "Macedonian" from the citizenship. They proposed the citizenship to be only "citizen of North Macedonia". And here and here, it's crystal-clear that another Albanian, Ziadin Sela, proposed to replace the term "Macedonian" with "Albanian" in the citizenship, which results in the term "Albanian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". Ziadin Sela also said that the term "Macedonian" is offensive for the Albanians. Finally, you can find here an article published in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia, the Foreign Minister, Dimitrov, clarifies that the citizenship (nationality) is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", and the term "Macedonian" is only the ethnicity of some of the people who live in North Macedonia. Therefore, the term "Macedonian" doesn't make sense for all people of North Macedonia, because it doesn't identify Albanians and Albanians have explicitly said that. Peace in balkans (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian citizen should certainly not link to Macedonian (ethnic group). I think a new page should be created: Macedonian (citizen) and/or Citizen of North Macedonia similar to British_nationality_law or British subject where Macedonian citizenship is explained and there are statistics of the ethnic groups that makeup the Macedonian citizens ie ethnic Macedonians, Albanian Macedonians, Aromanians etc. British citizen doesn't link to English, Scotish ethnic groups etc. A similar page exists for Greek citizens (Greek_nationality_law). Our wording for citizen should be: Macedonian / Citizen of North Macedonia both linked to the Macedonian citizenship site. -- Stevepeterson (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a new page that explains the different viewpoints might be the only sensible way out at this point. But its title should be neither of the red-linked proposals above, both of which are contentious themselves (because they are parts of the supposedly “unbreakable” construct agreed to for passports and state IDs). How about something like

North Macedonian in the next few weeks. —ThorstenNY (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• @Libhye, FlavrSavr, Argean, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Tomica, Local hero, Thryduulf, Stevepeterson, Kiril Simeonovski, MacedonianBoy, and Antondimak:
  Please read here the diplomatic correspondence as announced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Greece) in order to clarify the incorrect interpretations about the Prespa Agreement. It is the first time that it is clarified that whatever is not related to the state can be called either "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian". They also give us a great example "North Macedonian society". Fortunately, the propaganda or wrong assumptions (intentionally or unintentionally) used/made by some people here is now officially over. The Prespa agreement neither proposes nor forbids the usage of the term "North Macedonian". According first of all to the Prespa agreement, second to rationality, and third to the Greek government, the term "North Macedonian" is as correct/suitable as the term "Macedonian". The best part is that if people of North Macedonia are related to the state, then their name is determined by the Prespa Agreement, which means they are "... Of North Macedonia". Otherwise, if people are not related to the state, then the term "North Macedonian" is as correct/wrong as "Macedonian". This means that your argument about the intentional non-existence of the term "North Macedonian" in the Prespa agreement is officially invalid according to the reliable source that you want to use every time that it helps you to support your wrong claims. The Greek government also clarified for one more time, and without referring only to official documents, that the nationality is "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia", and this is one thing, it cannot be separated. I hope now, all of you understand the obvious thing: the Prespa agreement leaves everything open such that both governments can convince their people that this is a good agreement. Please don't make the mistake and introduce more problems to our countries. If you read carefully the Prespa agreement, everything makes sense and is carefully written such that both sides can interpret it in different ways. Now, we have officially a clarification about the term "North Macedonian". This doesn't mean that wikipedia should use it, but this certainly means that this argument is automatically gone. Please find other arguments to support your opinion and stop making assumptions. Please support your opinion only on data. Last but not least, please learn a lesson from the article published by BBC that talks about "Macedonian" minority in Greece. Greece has already officially sent a letter of complaint to BBC. BBC is not North Macedonia, BBC is something like wikipedia, and you see how BBC and Wikipedia can introduce problems to the two countries that made an agreement after 27 years. Peace in balkans (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peace in balkans: Here you can find an equivalent in which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the other signatory forbids the use of the term 'North Macedonian' but it is not worth commenting because it is biased in the similar way as the other one you are referring to. If you have regressed so low to the level of using non-English explanations by state authorities of the signatory countries to make an argument about what is allowed and what not on the English Wikipedia, then it is definitely very unfortunate for the quality of this discussion. On the issue about the Macedonian minority in Greece and the use of the Macedonian language there, it is simply off-topic and should be discussed elsewhere on the English Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kiril Simeonovski: Thanks for admitting that it doesn't matter how the government of Greece/North Macedonia tries to interpret for their own reasons the Prespa agreement after ratifying the Prespa agreement. This is what I am trying to explain to everybody here. Please tell the same to them... What matters is only the text of the Prespa agreement, and the Prespa Agreement does not forbid the usage of the term "North Macedonian". I am sorry, but what is the problem with non-english? Other users have already used this reliable source to report the official state of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece, and the same happened with the state spokesman of North Macedonia as reported by CNN. Please don't be biased, the same rules apply to both countries. The minority issue was just an example of what problems can be introduced by people who make wrong assumptions and misinterpret the Prespa agreement. That's all. Peace in balkans (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Article 1(12) of the Prespa Agreement requires amendment to Article 49 of the Constitution of Republic of Macedonia. In compliance with the Prespa Agreement, on 11 January 2019, the National Parlament of Republic of Macedonia adopted the amendment to the Article 49 (i.e., Amendment 36) to the Constitution of Republic of Macedonia. The first sentence of this amendment explicitly mentions "Macedonian people" by stating: "The Republic protects, guarantees and nurtures the peculiarities, historical and cultural heritage of the Macedonian people". Since the Prespa Agreement was ratified by the National Parlament of Hellenic Republic on 25 January 2019, it means that Greece has officially recognized the new Article 49, thus officially recognizing "Macedonian people" (i.e., Macedonians) in Republic of Macedonia. ObjectiveBoy (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ObjectiveBoy: you should read more carefully the RfC's question. Here we are voting about nationality, not people. Don't confuse "People" and "Nationality", they are two completely distinct concepts and this RfC's question is solely about nationality. The Prespa Agreement defines nationality only as "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia", nothing else, not even "Macedonian" nor "North Macedonian". The first one is the term's full form, and we are called to pick up one of the two latter ones to describe nationality in its shorter form. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: I believe I have addressed exactly the question raised in this particular area of discussion. Furthermore, although internationally acclaimed, the Prespa agreement was rejected on the national referendum in Republic of Macedonia, which took place on 30 September 2018, since the turnout was far below the legally binding (50%) threshold (as per "Official Gazette of Republic of Macedonia", No. 186, page 12, 8 October 2018). It is an indisputable (also legal) evidence that the country's citizens do not want their original nationality (Macedonian) being brought into question. -ObjectiveBoy (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I must point out to you that since the referendum failed to achieve a consensus, this means that there is a lack of "proof" of anything. The absence of evidence is not evidence that the contrary is true. There is an astounding leap in logic that you are making in your statement above, and I highly doubt that there is anything legally binding resulting from the referendum not meeting its threshold. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Wiz9999. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiz9999: I appreciate your comments, and have rephrased the last sentence of my previous statement. -ObjectiveBoy (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For current adjectival usage of respective terms for state-associated entities, see the reliable sources list.

What term should be used when referring to state-associated entities, including governmental organisations and official ranks, as well as other public entities from North Macedonia as specified in

• Option A: The term used when referring to state-associated and other public entities should be "... of North Macedonia" only e.g. Government of North Macedonia, not (North) Macedonian Government.
• Option B: The term used when referring to state-associated and other public entities should be both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. e.g. the North Macedonian Government or the Government of North Macedonia.
• Option C: The term used when referring to state-associated and other public entities should be "Macedonian", e.g. Macedonian Government. "... of North Macedonia" can be used where a similar form would be used for other countries.

Survey (public entities)

• Option C. The Prespa agreement may prescribe the possessive construction ("of North Macedonia") here, but having only that is syntactically far too restrictive to be linguistically viable (we couldn't even write a straightforward sentence about what happened at Prespa itself if we took it at face value: "The Greek and Macedonian prime ministers made an agreement"; are we really going to distort that to "the Greek prime minister and the one of North Macedonia"?). If we are going to use adjectives (and I mean real adjectives, not the "of" constructions the agreement falsely describes as such), then there's no reason not to use the same adjective as in all the other contexts (nationality etc.), i.e. plain "Macedonian". This, too, is in line with what seems to be the emerging practice of outside reliable sources (which is ultimately the sole criterion we have, not the Prescriptions of the Prespa agreement). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B: The use of North Macedonian is already emerging in reliable media usage, and not allowing Wikipedia to utilise it as an alternative to 'of North Macedonia' is restrictive. Nationality does not apply to state-sponsored entities, since state-entities are not people. There is also precedent on Wikipedia for the natural adjectival form of names: someone from XYZia is an XYZian. This would also help avoid confusion with the other definitions of 'Macedonian'. --
  blah) 19:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option C. A is too restrictive. C is superior to B because that's been common usage up till now and there is no concrete evidence that this will change in the foreseeable future. --Local hero ^talk 19:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C. Per Future Perfect's comment! — Tom^(T2ME) 20:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. It is used by RS and it is unambiguous. —ThorstenNY (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A: is likely the most reliable. Jingiby (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. Even though it isn't binding for Wikipedia, the agreement clearly states that the identifyer "North" should be used for any organisation that refers to the state. That means that in Macedonian the entities are going to include "North", and we would be removing it, creating a bit of confusion. However, the real confusion would stem from the fact that we would be using a different name for the state and its public entities. How do we expect a reader that isn't familiar with all this to figure out that when they read "Macedonian parliament", it refers to the parliament of North Macedonia, especially when there are other kinds of Macedonia too? The topic is already confusing as is, and we should not make it worse, as our primary goal is to present to inform the readers, who are almost entirely ignorant on the subject. Using "North Macedonian parliament" instead seems much simpler, follows stipulations of the agreement, and is flexible as an adjective. We also have no problem with sources, as there are already a lot of reliable sources that use the term. --Antondimak (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. The third option should be out of the question for a reliable source, as Prespa is crystal clear when it comes to state/public entities following the new name. The first option on the other hand, though accurate is highly restrictive on everyday usage. Finally B is both accurate, easy to use, and already starting to become very common in international media usage.StevenHal (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — StevenHal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B as per Antondimak & StevenHal --Despotak (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C as per
  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and at this moment it's simply wrong to choose a term that might some day become the dominant one. On the disambiguation issues - the parallel with North/South Korea is misleading - there is no "South Macedonian Prime Minister", "South Macedonian Army", "South Macedonian Parliament" that could potentially cause confusion. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC) (updated on 15:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC))[reply
  ]
• Option B obviously! Like Antondimak has said, I do not even imagine what mess the Option C can cause, if we start calling the institutions of North Macedonia simply "Macedonian", when there is ambiguity between 3 different Macedonias. History has taught us that when a term is ambigous, it is bound to cause problems for everyone. Now that the country changed its ambiguous name "Macedonia" to a new but more distinctive one, we, as Wikipedia, should respect this instead of calling the country's institutions by demonyms that are no longer legally/politically true for/reflective of the country and its official name. Yes, the international media which in the past couple of days resisted on changing the name, such as Balkan Insight (BIRN), started switching lately to the new demonym for that country. Sure, not all media use the new name and demonym yet, but the country was just renamed. It is natural that this takes time, as we are in a transitional period from the old to the new name, but since we are called to decide, we have to take in account the new political and legal reality. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B is reasonable. "of North Macedonia" seems to be the only appropriate choice for page titles, given that it is the only
  WP:RS, that I think are already enough. Just as a side note, I believe we shouldn't translate the name of officially renamed entities in an inconsistent way (e.g. North Macedonian Radio Television ↔ Radio Television of North Macedonia) when not required. --Argean (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B Already been used widely in the media and most appopriate form. Number 57 22:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B The country's name is now Republic of North Macedonia and it should be reflected as such. North Macedonian is the appropriate term. Dash9Z (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B I don't see anything to discuss here. It's clear from everything that the correct term includes the word "North". The Option A is also fine, but I don't see any reason to stick on such a detail that restricts us on writing. Peace in balkans (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — Peace in balkans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B It's not restrictive as Option A, and it's not ambiguous as the first form of Option C. --StanProg (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B It's not the job of Wikipedia to enforce the bureaucratic formalism of the Prespa Agreement by needlessly restricting editors to use 'of North Macedonia' but not North Macedonian. In normal English language usage, these two forms are synonymous. Therefore, if one is used, the other should also be allowed. Since not using 'of North Macedonia' is out of the question, North Macedonian must be allowed to be used as well. --Kkyriakop (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — Kkyriakop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option C - as per reasons outlined by @Fut.Perf. and @FlavrSavr.Resnjari (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B: Yes, as SilentResident stated, Option C will just cause a massive mess, and cause lots of cases to elevate up to some kind of arbitration. Also, as I stated in the #Nationality of People section above, "North Macedonian" is a term implying 'belonging' to the state of "North Macedonia", so I don't see its use here as unjustifiable. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C...the nationality is Macedonian, whatever the state name. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A. We should do that which is least likely to result in years of endless complaints about Wikipedia's practices, and that is to align ourselves as closely as possible with the provisions of the Prespa agreement. – The agreement doesn't even mention the term North Macedonian, differentiating instead between terms incorporating North Macedonia (such as of North Macedonia), to be used in this case, and the term Macedonian, expressly allowed in all other circumstances. Libhye (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A or B, so at least mentioning 'North', which is consistent with the country name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Already been used widely in the media and most appopriate form. --Sharouser (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Already been used widely in the media and most appopriate form. Xaris333 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B on the same basis as my comment on nationality of people. But if the nationality question goes for Macedonian, then we should apply option C here. Option A is too restrictive. Kahastok talk 10:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B as this is what people will use even if this RfC attempts to prescribe one or the other only. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A I don't see how option C is permissible given that the reason for the dispute in the first place was to deny the FYRM the use of the term "Macedonian". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B since mainstream media use it as such Weatherextremes (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B if I understand it rightly. Tet Offensive, for example, consistently uses "South Vietnamese", not "of South Vietnam". Ditto with Berlin Wall, which has dozens occurrences of "East German". And although I'm merely a Virginian (not an "East Virginian"), we're comfortable with saying that people living 100 miles northwest of me are "West Virginians". Nyttend (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A per Prespa agreement, article 1 (3) (f) - "of North Macedonia". The term "North Macedonian" is not mentioned anywhere, stop trying to invent it. sliceofcodes (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC) — sliceofcodes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option BIn normal English language usage, these two forms are synonymous. We can't restrict editors and users on this.--APG1984 (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Why should North Macedonia be special from other countries. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 07:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C Maybe it 's too soon to decide on this matter, we should wait and see what term RSs are using. But as for now, option C seems better. It avoids the overuse of "North".Cinadon36 (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B totally natural and logic--Azeryion (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — Azeryion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B In accordance to the Prespa agreement. Public entities in North Macedonia are in fact being renamed into North Macedonian or of North Macedonia ie names of institutions, museums, buildings and labels are already being changed. Going against the Prespa Agreement is something that none of the two republics want and would contribute to futher confusion as Macedonian relates to geographical region and several regions outside North Macedonia -- Stevepeterson (talk)
• Option B is the only viable one. Opt. A would deny people the ability to use everyday English and dictate their exact word order, which is something we don't do. C is no longer accurate and innately ambiguous and confusing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C The agreement does not mention 'North Macedonian', so Option B automatically fails, while Option A is not practical and unnecessarily excludes the common practice. Importantly, no restriction has ever been made on the use of the shortened and simpler 'Macedonian' after the agreement took into force and there is no other country in the world with names of public entities that could create ambiguities. The information above that the public entities are renamed to 'North Macedonian' is incorrect. In fact, those that contained the possessive construction 'of Macedonia' are being renamed to 'of North Macedonia' (e.g. National Bank of the Republic of North Macedonia), while those that contained the adjective 'Macedonian' remain unchanged for now (e.g. Macedonian Radio Television). Shall the renaming continue in the same way, it would give additional weight to Option C. But if those containing 'Macedonian' in their names are renamed to 'North Macedonian', it would give weight to Option B; similarly, if all are renamed to include the possessive construction 'of North Macedonia', it would give weight to Option A. Clearly, if the official name of a public entity retains 'Macedonian', the corresponding article will not be renamed, and any mention of it as 'North Macedonian' would be wrong (e.g. Macedonian Radio Television can not be referred to as North Macedonian Radio Television). For now, the final outcome of the renaming process is in the domain of
  crystal-ball reasoning.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B. The rationale for changing the main article's name and start this RfC was the Prespa Agreement. Per the Prespa agreement the institutions are all renamed to match the country's name. Therefore, the most accurate choice is A, but for more flexibility I would prefer B, which is also serving the spirit of Prespa Agreement. After the Prespa Agreement, Option C is inaccurate and confusing. Of course, we should watch in real life which possessive/adjectival construction will prevail, and re-examine our choice if this not in agreement with reality. However, my strong belief and prediction is that, as regards the country's entities, the "North Macedonian/of North Macedonian" structure shall prevail.Yannismarou (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C. - as per reasons outlined by @FlavrSavr. Moreover, besides the changed there is only one sovereign state in the world which bears the term Macedonia in its name thus it is the only entity which has governmental bodies (on the highest level), continuation of naming them as Macedonian will not do any confusion anywhere. - Македонец (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C - FlavrSavr comment and the others C supporters outlined the issue quite well.MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B as the least ambiguous, and apparently what NM government already uses. Place Clichy (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B least ambiguous and easiest to write. Orser67 (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C, As there is no country of South Macedonia using Macedonian should be fine. If the region of Greece is being discussed, one should use Greek Macedonia, or the region of Macedonia in Greece --Jesuiseduardo (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B to distinguish from things relating to Macedonia as a region, to Macedonia in Greece or to Macedonian entities outside North Macedonia while not being restrictive in terms of grammar that is to be used.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A. Looks like I didn't vote here! My bad. Similar to the concerns expressed by
  Prespa Agreement. It would feel disrespectful for us to address a government's institutions and leadership by something that they explicitly do not want to be called (Historical example: Persia --> Iran). Thank you all for your time! (especially the people who end up having to close this thing!)―MJL -Talk-^☖ 06:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B agreeing with Twofortnights's point above.--Lepourquoipas (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C. Per Future Perfect's comment --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C.--Macedonicus (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C. Per Future Perfect's comment. Additionally, "Macedonian Government" (for example) uniquely and unequivocally identifies a government of the only internationally recognized sovereign state whose name contains the word "Macedonia". ObjectiveBoy (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC) — ObjectiveBoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option C. The new, imposed name is not well accepted by the citizens of the country, especially by the ethnic Macedonians. Last week, during the biggest annual pop culture event [Buba Mara na popularnosta], the new name was used only once in a joke: How would we now say it will be windy in the northern part of the country? It will be windy in north North Macedonia!!? GStojanov (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C - Виолетова (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C - Gordi (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC) — Gordi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option C Filip M (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Filip M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B ... of North Macedonia is (officially and unofficially) correct! No common sense can explain that someone/something of North Macedonia is not North Macedonian. It's not natural... and nobody in the world will read the Prespa agreement and say... WOW sorry it's not North Macedonian... it's of North Macedonia.... Mir suaar (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC) — Mir suaar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B it seems normal to me given the new name.--Φίλιππος Α.Δ, (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC) — Φίλιππος Α.Δ, (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B is the most appropriate for Wikipedia users and is in line with Prespa Europarliament (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (public entities)

• [Moved from above – in response to Fut.Perf.]: It is in no way the case that of North Macedonia is too restrictive to be linguistically viable, nor is it the case that ‘we couldn't even write a straightforward sentence about what happened at Prespa itself if we took it at face value’. The sentence in question could easily be rewritten to say ‘The prime ministers of Greece and North Macedonia made an agreement’. I defy anyone to give an example of a sentence that couldn't easily be rewritten to conform with option A and remain natural-sounding. Libhye (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... and after signing the agreement on the shores of Lake Prespa they took a boat and travelled from the Greek side of the border to the one of North Macedonia"? ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and after signing the agreement on the shores of Lake Prespa they took a boat and travelled from the Greek side of the border to North Macedonia's.

This is the correct adjective based on North Macedonia's MFA Note. And it is perfectly correct linguistically. @Fut.Perf. it would be more honest to admit that are just trying to make it look funny so that you push your prefered "Macedonian" adjective for political reasons despite being obsolete -- Stevepeterson (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and after signing the agreement on the shore of Lake Prespa, they took a boat and travelled from the Greek side of the border to that of North Macedonia. --

blah) 10:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you seriously consider that decent English prose? It isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... and after signing the agreement on the shore of Lake Prespa, they took a boat and travelled from the Greek to the North Macedonian side of the border". Option A is restrictive, while Option C has ambiguous terms, which is why I voted for Option B. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity is a red herring. The theoretical ambiguity of "Macedonia(n)" never was a problem, hasn't been a problem for our readers for the last 10 years, and won't be a problem now. (Where there really is ambiguity, i.e. real, contextual ambiguity and not just the imagined ambiguity that's such a bogeyman in the minds of Greeks, we can of course still use ad-hoc disambiguators as dictated by common sense.) But thanks for confirming that English has country adjectives for a reason: because it needs them to write proper prose; that was my whole point here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to be condescending. Reducing this discussion down to "a bogeyman in the minds of Greeks" is a little bit disingenuous given that numerous non-Greek editors have raised serious concerns not only relating to the ambiguity of Macedonia(n) re

blah) 20:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Philly boy92: If it has been unproblematic to describe the population of the republic as Macedonians until now, why would it not be unproblematic to continue to do so? Libhye (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise and SilentResident: This is actually not one of those situations where the Prespa agreement provides for the use of a construction with North Macedonia, so the text could easily be rewritten as ‘... and after signing the agreement on the shores of Lake Prespa, they took a boat and travelled from the Greek to the Macedonian side of the border’. The Prespa agreement prescribes constructions with North Macedonia for such a narrow range of situations that it doesn't constitute a problem in practice. Libhye (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I was only making the linguistic point that the possessive constructions are less flexible, and that goes independent of the exact topic domain. I think this whole RfC section suffers from a lack of clarity what those "public entities" are, and what kinds of references should fall under this part of the rule. I'm beginning to think we should have taken more time to hash out more detailed proposals, with clear explanations, examples and everything. This RfC is getting messy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:I think the same for most sections. I also think that there was an unusual haste to start the RfC. Is there a possiblity to make clarifications or this is a no-go territory and the questions/examples are forever fixed since the voting has already started? --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stevepeterson: - sorry for sort of pestering you, but the option closest to the Prespa Agreement is actually Option A, and this is also the UN-interpretation "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may not be used. --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Place Clichy: - actually the government doesn't use North Macedonian, or Macedonian for that matter, it just avoids the adjectival use altogether. Greece does the same. Yeah, it's a bit weird but this was agreed in Prespa and it is now entered UN terminology. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @FlavrSavr: What I meant is that the North Macedonian government uses "North Macedonia" with a very large understanding, including bodies and events prior to the name change. For instance, the official announcement of the renaming reads: Amendments [...] which the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia adopted on January 11th 2019, which is prior to the entry into force of the renaming. Place Clichy (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a 4th option North Macedonia's and of North Macedonia which is the recommended by the North Macedonia's Ministry of Foreign Affair: https://mfa.gov.mk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2975:prespa-agreement-media-guidelines&catid=52&Itemid=684&lang=mk). If North Macedonia's MFA and Greek counterparts recommend these terms to media and organizations and send notes against incorrect adjectives such as Macedonian and North Macedonian , then its a matter of time that the term will be widely adopted by all reliable media. And our Consensus based on the survey of current media, not familiar yet with the content of the Agreement will look very obsolete and incorrect. My advice has always been: stick to the Prespa Agreement as much as possible as this is the foundation of correct use of all terms. --Stevepeterson (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the talk page. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 06:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• After the governments of Greece and North Macedonia recently published notes about how adjectives should be used, and they stressed that both "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" should be avioded, I think it's critical to use "of North Macedonia" wherever syntactically possible. --Antondimak (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also North Macedonia's in addition to "of North Macedonia" and this is the only way forward when referring to the state.

Then Macedonian can be used for the ethnic group, its language, culture, history etc, but not for all citizens of North Macedonia. So demonym and adjectives should be North Macedonia's which is inline with Prespa and is not any less practical linguistically than (North) Macedonian -- Stevepeterson (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For current adjectival usage of respective terms for other entities, not specified above, see the reliable sources list.

What adjective should be used to refer to other entities from North Macedonia, not specified above? This includes article titles, references in articles and the infobox on the main article. Question clarified by alteration on 01:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC), as per

What adjective should be used to refer to other entities from North Macedonia, not specified above? This excludes any adjectival usage relating to aspects of culture and/or ethnicity. This will impact article titles, references in articles and the infobox on the main article.

• Option A: The adjective used to refer to such entities from North Macedonia should be "Macedonian" only, eg. the Macedonian countryside, Macedonian economy, Macedonian football team
• Option B: The adjective used to refer to such entities from North Macedonia should be "North Macedonian" only, eg. the North Macedonian countryside, North Macedonian economy, North Macedonian football team
• Option C: The adjective used to refer to such entities from North Macedonia should be either "North Macedonian" or "Macedonian", depending on context.

Survey (adjective)

• Option C Option A with a bit of an allowance for Option C (i.e. there's no problem adding "North" if and when there's a true need of disambiguation; otherwise, the plain adjective is as good here as everywhere else, and seems to match what the majority of reliable sources have been doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updating: In light of what we've seen the reliable sources doing, I have to concur with User:Thryduulf below: the sources are fairly even between plain "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian", so there's really no good policy reason to exclude either. This leaves open the question of what "depending on context" means. I'd say it would be reasonable to prefer "North Macedonian" when first referring to the country in an unrelated context, for the sake of greater clarity, but prefer plain "Macedonian" when the topic of this country is already established in context, for example inside the text of articles about Macedonian topics/entities etc., for the sake of simplicity and concision. But if we can't agree on some reasonable approach to what "depending on context" means, I'd still prefer Option A, as this is both in line with (part of) current usage and with the official prescriptive norm set by the country's authorities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C: Both, North Macedonian in case of something connected with the country North Macedonia and Macedonian in the case of something connected with the Macedonian ethnicity. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC) (struck because this editor was evading a topic ban from the topic area of Macedonia at the time of participating. ––––)[reply]
• Option A. Again, agreeing with Future's comment. No need to complicate things. — Tom^(T2ME) 20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C: Jingiby (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B: this is the most logical choice. It avoids ambiguity and follows established norms of 'someone from XYZ is an XYZian'. The claim that "the majority" of sources are using 'Macedonian' as the adjective for North Macedonia is, as of writing this, at best dubious and at worst untrue. I would have gone for C but it was not defined what "context" means prior to opening the RfC so I am going for option B instead. --
  blah) 20:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option C I agree with Sashko1999. --Antondimak (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Only reason I voted for C was because of the culture. Any other usage I find to be state-related, so I will vote for the non-ambiguous "North Macedonian". --Antondimak (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C, as per Sashko1999’s argument. —ThorstenNY (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A. Agreeing with per Fut Perf. The agreement that brought all this up doesn't even use "North Macedonian". With common usage till now being "Macedonian", I see no good reason to change our treatment on WP. --Local hero ^talk 20:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B As done with all adjectives referring to countries, states, regions, etc. bearing directional names.StevenHal (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — StevenHal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B as I find it to be the natural language in this case. Someone with no knowledge of the naming dispute, the history, even the existence of the country, will have no problem to discern that something "North Macedonian" is from "North Macedonia". On the other hand, "Macedonian" does not naturally lead to "North Macedonia" and it will confuse people with no knowledge of the issue. --Despotak (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A as per
  official name, we should use that. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B, but Option C isn't that bad either. As long as context is written in an way that eliminates any confusion. Initially, I favored only the Option C since I feel there may be any context where both may be needed, but after reading the arguments in the Discussion, I believe Option B can avoid some of the ambiguous issues Option C entails. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B as already being used in the media. Offers the most clarity. Number 57 22:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C and further specify the content. As such my logic says that we shouldn't rename terms related to people, the language, and the culture in all its' aspects (e.g. the
  WP:COMMONNAMES may take a very long time to be valid in some instances. --Argean (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B. Comes naturally. It should be use for everything to give the most clarity. Dash9Z (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. With the exception of topics related exclusively to the Ethnic Macedonians, like Macedonian cuisine, Macedonian traditions, etc, which are not limited within the state boundaries. --StanProg (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B when referring to the country of North Macedonia. The adjective version of North Macedonia in the English language is North Macedonian. Anything else violates Wikipedia:Use_plain_English and Wikipedia:Remember_the_reader. The adjective Macedonian can be used when referring to the ethnic group of Macedonians (e.g. Macedonian traditions), to the language (e.g. Macedonian grammar) or to the region as a whole. --Kkyriakop (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — Kkyriakop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option A -Resnjari (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B The dispute over the name Macedonia is unimportant for the majority of the world, but it took 27 years to be resolved, showing how important is for the people of the two countries. Some of the comments that I read show me that people do not understand that the confusion of the last 27 years was the reason for all the problems of North Macedonia. We have the chance to make progress and avoid any confusion by respecting the Prespa agreement, which means the decision of both countries. What is the motivation to still use a term that created confusion and introduced only problems for North Macedonia and Greece? When North Macedonia changes signs and all names in the whole country, I fail to understand why we discuss here whether we should use the same names in wikipedia or not. Simplicity is always good but is different than using confusing terms. I don't think that someone of us is more important than the two countries, such that we can decide the name of the country. There was a negotiation that lasted more than six months, which end up in the Prespa agreement. Why do we need to re-negotiate everything from scratch? Both countries made a compromise; it's a difficult compromise, but we have to accept it. Unless we refer to people who call themselves Macedonians (self-determination), we should use the term North Macedonian since it's about the country North Macedonia. If we talk about food, it makes sense to call it "Macedonian" if we want to make a connection to the ethnic group, which means we want to explicitly exclude other ethnic groups. However, if we want to talk about a food that is well-known in the whole country, it makes no sense to call it "Macedonian". Peace in balkans (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — Peace in balkans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B: "North Macedonian" only, for the reasons I stated in the last two sections. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A as that is the nationality of the people and they did not give that up under the Prespa Agreement, one they were forced to enter into by a neighbournig bully-state that would not respect their right to self-determination. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A. We should do that which is least likely to result in years of endless complaints about Wikipedia's practices, and that is to align ourselves as closely as possible with the provisions of the Prespa agreement. – The agreement doesn't even mention the term North Macedonian, differentiating instead between terms incorporating North Macedonia (such as of North Macedonia), to be used in a set of specifically defined circumstances, and the term Macedonian, expressly allowed in all other cases. Libhye (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, consistent with the country name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. We should renam
  North Macedonian cuisine. --Sharouser (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B As done with all adjectives referring to countries, states, regions, etc. bearing directional names. Xaris333 (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. Sashko1999 makes an interesting point here, that is addressed below. I take this section to mean the adjective for things of or pertaining to North Macedonia, as opposed to things of or pertaining to the Macedonian people or culture. My arguments elsewhere apply here too (we're guessing at future usage whatever we do and the situation is parallel to South Korea and East Timor) but this seems to me to be the more likely finishing point. If things of or pertaining to the Macedonian people or culture are included, then my choice is Option C. Kahastok talk 10:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C. It is impossible to specify either one or the other exclusively without allowing for context, so we should explicitly allow whatever is best in context. For example it is not unlikely that reliable sources in different fields will adopt different conventions and forcing our articles to depart from that is just going to cause confusion and acrimony. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back on this I'm not sure why this question is even being asked - we should always follow the reliable sources and option C is the only one that allows us to do this. Either option A or option B directly contradict fundamental policies of Wikipedia that a local consensus cannot override. Thryduulf (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option D Avoid adjectives altogether. "The countryside of North Macedonia". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option Bis the least ambiguous Weatherextremes (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Treat like Korea. I assume that's closest to B, since we don't use "Korean" to refer to something only pertaining to Pusan or Seoul, but if we're talking about a cultural or physical-geographic topic that extends into Bulgaria or Greece, use simply "Macedonian", just as we do when talking about something like climate that's present in both Pyongyang and Seoul. Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A per Prespa agreement, Article 7 regarding terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonian". Wikipedia should not invent terms. The agreement was specifically careful with this. When it needs to be disambiguated, then " of North Macedonia" or similar form should be used. sliceofcodes (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC) — sliceofcodes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option Bis the least ambiguous. I agree with the argument about ethnic Macedonians but here we talk about something country-wide. Option B does not exclude usage of Macedonian for ethnic Macedonian-related things.--APG1984 (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B if it's about the country, then use the country name in the adjective to avoid any confusion. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 07:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B is the natural choice--Azeryion (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — Azeryion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option C and in accordance to the Prespa agreement. For anything except the following 3 uses: 1) Language (Macedonian, a South Slavic language), 2) Ethnic group (Macedonian, a Slavic ethnic group) and nationality (Citizen of North Macedonia / Macedonian) the North Macedonian should be used. Going against the Prespa Agreement is something that none of the two republics want and would contribute to further confusion as Macedonian relates to geographical region and several regions outside North Macedonia -- Stevepeterson (talk)
• Option C. Bearing in mind that I pretty much read everything above my comment before I write it, I pick Option C. I will highlight statements made by Thryduulf, Argean, Kahastok (especially the part with this diff), and Stevepeterson in order by whom I most agree with here. I would say that, like this question, the policy we adopt here should be intentionally vague. What concerns the country, the culture, or the country's culture is only limited by our collective imagination. Both can be fine, and neither will always work. I am pretty sure most editors here would agree with that. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 03:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. Using Opt. A is no longer accurate, and was always innately ambiguous and confusing. Option C isn't really viable, since "Macedonian", even if confined to modern-day people, is a broader ethnonym and isn't limited to people living in that country. There will be cause to use it, but not to specifically refer to North Macedonia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A The agreement does not mention 'North Macedonian', which should apply for the first of the following cases, while the others might not refer to the country. Firstly, for non-public entities (e.g. sport clubs, music bands, companies, associations etc.), there is also an additional argument that no other country-related adjective including the term 'Macedonian' is used on the English Wikipedia (e.g.
  Jakupica is a Macedonian mountain because it is entirely located within the region of Macedonia).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B. It is the most unambiguous and encyclopedically accurate term to be used for any entity related to the country, and history indicates that it will become the prevailing structure in common languate. "Macedonian" makes sense to me to be used only for the language (recognised as such by the Prespa Agreement, Greece and the international communitiy with the exception of Bulgaria) being again an unambiguous term (there is no other "Macedonian" language; there was only an obsolete "ancient Macedonian" language").Yannismarou (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A. As it is clearly stated by Kiril Simeonovski, especially with the fact that non-public entities from the regions belonging to other countries are identified and determined outside in the world by its belonging to their countries regarding that those which are coming from the only country that bears the Macedonia have the allowance by the agreement to use the plain name Macedonia it is reasonable to be recognized as Macedonian in English speaking Wikipedia and internet space. - Македонец (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A - totally agree with Fut.Per.MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B least ambiguous Orser67 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A, Again, there is only one country in the world with the term Macedonia in it official name. Using the example of countryside, if one is in Greece, then its the Greek countryside. But if one is in North Macedonia, it is the Macedonian countryside. -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B to avoid confusion with Macedonian entities outside North Macedonia.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B as Orser67 and Twofortnights. --Lepourquoipas (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Neither Prespa Agreement, neither any major institution use other adjective than Macedonian, so Wikipedia try to introduce original research in this. Did anybody read official announcement of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of N. Macedonia, about usage of adjectives. Additionally, I will bring again my comment about important mentioning in CIA Factbook (major outlet for country data), that they stick with Macedonian as only adjective. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Macedonian is the only logical adjective since North Macedonian is not to be used by anyone, Wikipedia should not invent adjectives for this purpose. --Macedonicus (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A I am against the use of adjective "North Macedonian" in any context. The state government does not use it. It asked politely all media not to use it. People of the country don't use it. Why would Wikipedia impose it? If we can't say "of North Macedonia" then we need to say "Macedonian". GStojanov (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC) GStojanov (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A -Виолетова (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A - Gordi (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC) — Gordi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option A - it isn't North Macedonian under either COMMONNAME or the treaty - so why on earth would it NM? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Filip M (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Filip M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B Nobody will read the Prespa agreement and say.... wow wait... this is not state-associated (CHECK MARK), it's not financed by the state (CHECK MARK), it's not established by law (CHECK MARK), so... "Prespa agreement, Article 1(f) says I am allowed to call it Macedonian". nobody will do that, and nobody will make the distinction between state-associated entities and non-state-associated entities. Everybody will use North Macedonian for everything because this is the only natural way in every language and for every country. Mir suaar (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC) — Mir suaar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B with flexibility. North Macedonian should be the standard adjective for anything relative to the country, in any context, but tolerance should be given to specific topics where "Macedonian XYZ" is an established expression or a proper noun, such as Macedonian Radio Television. Place Clichy (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Of course I might be considered as biased here because I am Greek (and Macedonian from Greece on top!) so I don't know I my vote can count according to your rules. For me even North Macedonian seems strange but since the country is called this way now, I think it is the options that makes more sense. Also, I have very few edits on the English WP but have been quite active in the Greek WP which you can check here Thanks anyway:)--Φίλιππος Α.Δ, (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC) — Φίλιππος Α.Δ, (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Discussion (adjective)

• blah) 19:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Also it was agreed not to include links in the official media link depository that are dated pre 12 February, but reliable and official sources which have used the adjective "North Macedonian" prior to that date include

blah) 20:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Since you are mentioning methodology once more I will copy-paste what I already wrote on the Talk page: In research when you want to report accuracy you need to have a set of predetermined criteria that meet the standard of reproducibility. That means that the same results should be able to be obtained by anyone that follows the reported methodology. If this is not possible the study can be rejected as biased. If we don't set a specific set of criteria that should apply for all sources that are included in the media repository, I'm really sorry but I feel that we are failing the criterion of accuracy and we could be accused of bias, thus failing the criterion of neutrality as well. I can't see where your objections stem from. I'll remind you that if we include articles before 12/02 we should also check how common are the sources that use the term "Macedonian" for the same time frame --Argean (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: if the most voted option is "C per
  blah) 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Excellent point,
  Philly boy92! Yes, I would hope this reasoning becomes part of the RfC. If it doesn’t, I would consider changing my vote to Option B. After re-reading the description of the item, I would be declined to distinguish between entities from North Macedonia (which, by definition, are of the modern country) and entities connected to culture, language, ethnicity etc., which would fall outside the scope of the country. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well the original intention of this section of the RfC related to the national adjective and didn't relate to anything to do with ethnicity/culture (as this was being addressed by another section entirely). However, through the revisions during drafting it seems to have lost some of this intent in the phrasing of the question. I'm sure that many editors voting option B at the moment are under the belief that this section relates to the adjective on a country wide scale and not to the principal ethnicity. For instance, if I order a kettle that is made in North Macedonia to be delivered to my house, then when it arrives is that a "Macedonian" kettle, or a "North Macedonian" kettle? Similarly, what is a commercial company from North Macedonia called? Is it a "Macedonian" company, or a "North Macedonian" company. What Sashko1999 has pointed out by his edit here is the deficiency in the section's principal question. I simply say this is a consequence of the short time we had to bring this RfC to life. However, now that it is here, the RfC is more than just a mechanism to perform voting in Wikipedia. It is a discussion process. If we see a section is deficient, we can discuss an improvement and either put that in place, still considering all prior votes to be valid (if the change is small), or to start a whole new vote on the re-worded section. We have 30 days to sort all this out now, there is still plenty of time to hold a proper vote on a re-worded section if need be. We only just started after all. Just because we drafted it like this previously does not mean it is set in stone. So if you have reservations about this section as it currently stands, we can put a pause to the voting till we can figure out how best to fix the issue and ultimately come to a consensus on the "adjective". - Wiz9999 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really see a lot of problems here, Wiz9999. Corporations are incorporated under state laws, so: North Macedonian company. If a pretty generic/utilitarian kettle is merely manufactured in the country, it’s a North Macedonian kettle. If it’s made in a specific Macedonian style (which presumably predates the term RoNM), it’s a Macedonian kettle. It it’s also manufactured in the country, it could be a Macedonian and North Macedonian kettle. But yeah, the next 30 days should give us a better idea how this shakes out in practice. —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option C does not necessarily exclude option A or B. 'Depending on the context', if the context is broader than North Macedonian then obviously one can use Macedonian. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I want to clarify something about the UN's stance on adjectives, posted in the "Media Link repository". It means that the law doesn't bind private associations from naming themselves "Macedonian". Obviously we follow that, like with the Macedonian Patriotic Organization, it isn't bound by anything. However, it has essentially nothing to do with using adjectives in naturally in language (a North Macedonian forest), so I'm not sure it should belong there. --Antondimak (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the position of the

blah) 12:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

THAT is an excellent point. 👍 - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previously the UN used a different name than the country itself. Now they are in agreement. --Antondimak (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• By the United Nations the terms North Macedonian and Macedonian can't be used officially, but here we must use one of them, and because in the Prespa agreement exist the term of North Macedonia, it's logical to use the term North Macedonian, even if didn't exist, this term is logical. Macedonian, as I said before, should be used in cases where something is connected with the Macedonian ethnicity.

NOTE: The adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities as well as private entities and actors that are related to the State, are established by law, and enjoy financial support from State for activities abroad shall be in line with its official name or its short name, that is of the Republic of North Macedonia or of North Macedonia. Other adjectival references, including North Macedonian and Macedonian may not be used in all of the above cases. Sashko1999 (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC) (Struck because the editor was evading a topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

These are just the internal guidelines of the UN. Wikipedia is not obliged to follow them - are the people who are presenting it as proof suggesting that we should use the UN’s guidelines on wikipedia over what is common and natural in English, not to mention that which will avoid any semiological confusion? Three points:

1. The UN is not an encyclopaedia and therefore does not have the same requirements for clarify as Wikipedia might have. The context in which the UN guidelines will be applied, i.e. the UN diplomatic corps, has far fewer opportunities for confusion as an article relating to the various definitions of Macedonia on an encyclopaedia.
2. Wikipedia did not follow the UN/EU/NATO/OECD guidelines before when they prescribed the name “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. I find it highly unlikely that the people so enthusiastically presenting the UN guidelines and the Prespa Agreement as a reason as to why North Macedonian should not be allowed on wikipedia would have also argued with the same fervour to impose the nomenclature of the Interim accord instead of the name “Republic of Macedonia”.
3. The Prespa Agreement recognises that Greece also has a right to use the term Macedonia and explicitely states that neither of the two can monopolise the term. If we are using the Prespa Agreement as an argument for validity, should this not become policy too? Who decides that ‘Macedonian’ culture can only mean ethnic Macedonian and not Greek Macedonian? The agreement makes it clear that it is both, furthering my point regarding the need to avoid ambiguity.

This pretty much sums up my opposition to using the Prespa Agreement or the UN guidelines as definitive proof that North Macedonian should not be allowed to be used on Wikipedia, especially since in ghe media links section is it (as of writing this) more common as an adjective. The original NCMAC reasoning made it clear that international agreements are not how Wikipedia determines things, and I do not think that this logic is less valid in this RfC. —

blah) 16:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• @Sliceofcodes: Misquoting the Prespa Agreement again, as you did above. Article 7 clearly refers to respective [sic] understanding of the terms between the two nations/peoples and does not work in establishing an adjective for the country (something that should obviously follow the state's name) for any form of international usage. --StevenHal (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stevepeterson: Article 7.3. of the Prespa Agreement states that „when reference is made to North Macedonia, Macedonian denotes its territory, language, people and their attributes, with their own history, culture, and heritage, distinctly different from those of the“ Greek Macedonians. The United Nations also clearly established that the adjectival usage, when referring to private entities and actors, that are not related to the State or financed by it - is "Macedonian", including the adjective "Macedonian" for activities. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: That's a misunderstanding of what the UN said. It said that private entities may be called "Macedonian", just like they may be called "North Macedonian", or "Slavic Macedonian", or "Chinese" for that matter. It simply states that they are not bound by the treaty. This way, the Macedonian Patriotic Organization can retain its name in the country without being illegal. It doesn't mean that we should use "Macedonian" as a general adjective. --Antondimak (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Antondimak: That's an interesting interpretation, not sure if it is correct. I'm doubtful if North Macedonian will ever be used in any official capacity whatsoever. I'm seeing even Kathimerini being careful enough to avoid it. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlavrSavr: It almost certainly won't be used officially, but we need to need something other than "of North Macedonia" for the language to be natural. About Kathimerini, I think they're more likely to be careful not to use it compared to other sources, as they are closer and more sensitive to the issue. --Antondimak (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"North Macedonian" is also found in Kathimerini (in news piece unrelated to the dispute settlement): [40] Greek police sources told Kathimerini that their North Macedonian counterparts had not briefed them about... Place Clichy (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• blah) 22:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Philly boy92 So, you are guessing or you are sure about this, as in announcement of CIA Factbook on 14th February stated that this change will be approved from US Body of Geographic Names, so I guess you are sure that all of these bodies and entities in US Government, forgot to replace everything that they think that should be replace according your opinion. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

blah) 12:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Philly boy92 I'd give a benefit of a doubt for a day or two more. You might be right, but dismissing sources on the assumption that 'they have not made conscious choice' sets a dangerous precedent. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

blah) 12:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe they've decided to refer anachronistically as 'Macedonia' in the pre-2019 period? How could we know? --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. How do you know? The entry for North Macedonia is completely, 100% updated and yet the constitutional name listed is "Republic of Macedonia"?

blah) 12:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• @
  Philly boy92, Antondimak, ThorstenNY, Local hero, StevenHal, Despotak, FlavrSavr, SilentResident, Number 57, Argean, Dash9Z, StanProg, Kkyriakop, Resnjari, Peace in Balkans, Frenchmalawi, Libhye, Marcocapelle, Sharouser, Xaris333, Kahastok, Thryduulf, Laurel Lodged, Weatherextremes, Nyttend, Sliceofcodes, APG1984, BrandonXLF, Azeryion, Stevepeterson, MJL, SMcCandlish, Kiril Simeonovski, Yannismarou, Македонец, MacedonianBoy, Orser67, Jesuiseduardo, Twofortnights, Lepourquoipas, Ehrlich91, Macedonicus, GStojanov, and SaveTheFood: Pining all users who voted in this section thus far to inform of the clarification to the original question being asked. If you do not wish to adjust your vote or statement, no further action is needed. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for the ping but it does not change my opinion. Option C is the only one that allows us to follow whatever sources use, which is what we should always be doing. Thryduulf (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sticking with B, because C (like A) isn't viable; all sources that pre-date the name-change (i.e., almost all sources) will simply say "Macedonian" because there's not a time machine to use to rewrite them. It's too ambiguous, or this discussion would never have begun in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: For the record, "Macedonian" is as used as "North Macedonian" even after the name change. I'm only stating this because you say that "Macedonian" isn't a viable option, but according to the United Nations, it is the only official option. I also fail to see the ambiguity in "Macedonian national football team", but that's another topic. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is to communicate with unambiguous clarity, not play socio-political posturing games like whatever's going on within the UN. "Macedonian national football team" is ambiguous for anyone who doesn't know the convoluted history of Macedonia; WP is written for school children, too, not just people with poli-sci degrees.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to change your mind - it's just that you said "Macedonian" isn't a viable option, when it clearly is for a lot of

It's too early to tell. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'm also sticking with my choice of C, because I feel that the clarification, although it was necessary, is not detailed enough and we should have provided more examples to clarify things even better. I'm not sure if everyone will agree on which nouns fall under the definition of culture: does it include e.g. cuisine, or modern music and cinema? In my opinion there is also a grey area of daily life activities that cannot be listed under official or cultural activities, and for that reason we should be more flexible and allow both terms to be used depending on context. Unfortunately, and as long the dust has not yet settled (and for some uses it might take a very long time), we should realize that there is no one size fits all solution for adjective usage. --Argean (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also sticking with my choice of B. Xaris333 (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In 6/03 the Government of North Macedonia sent orders to public institutions to stop the use of "Macedonian" and use "National" instead, to avoid the usage of "North Macedonian". The Macedonian Opera and Ballet will now be known as "National Opera and Ballet", and the Macedonian Radio Television as "National Radio Television". If the adjective was to remain Macedonian (contrary to the name of the country for some reason) then why would the orders be issued? Regardless, the adjective should obviously follow the country's name, and this proves it further. --StevenHal (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in other articles about the periods and events between 1991 and 2019?

• Option A: Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia should still be used in historical articles.
• Option B: Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia should still be used in historical articles, with an optional note similar to "now North Macedonia".
• Option C: North Macedonia and Republic of North Macedonia should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in historical articles.

Survey (historical names)

• Option B as that is how it seems to be dealt with in comparable situations. "Now-North Macedonia" should be added where it is seen as necessary. --Local hero ^talk 19:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, this one's pretty obvious. There should be lots of leeway for pragmatical solutions in individual contexts; no need to handle this dogmatically and pedantically. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B per above --
  blah) 19:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B per above --Despotak (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. Per above. — Tom^(T2ME) 20:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B: Jingiby (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B There seems to be consensus for this one. It's pretty straightforward. --Antondimak (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C As the concerns I had haven't been answered, and as states have continuity, especially this one that just changed its name, I suggest we treat it like we do any other country which changed its name. --Antondimak (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, with the caveat that the optional clarification is truly optional and should only be used to avoid ambiguity. —ThorstenNY (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B would be the best choice StevenHal (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — StevenHal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B. Per above. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A as per standard practice; option B will create endless edit warring when problem editors insist that "now North Macedonia" is needed, when it clearly isn't. Number 57 22:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, per Fut.Perf., and I agree with ThorstenNY's rationale on the use of the optional text. --Argean (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C. This option is the closest to what I would suggest: North Macedonia, known as the Republic of Macedonia at the time. It offers consistency and clarity as to what entity it is referring to. Dash9Z (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B It's more open. It covers Option A, with the possibility to add clarification if and when it's necessary. --StanProg (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B - Resnjari (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B for me as well. I suggested this option for a while now, even before this RfC. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B: "Republic of Macedonia" is acceptable, with the added note of "now North Macedonia" being optionally used for both instances ("Republic of Macedonia"/"Macedonia"), as suggested. Though I feel notable effort should be made to reduce the overall specific occurrences of "Macedonia" over the far more acceptable "Republic of Macedonia" for this time period. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A, being COMMON NAME and the use of the note “(now North Macedonia)” is silly as all readers know very well that there is not any other Republic with a Macedonian name. It’s still stuff. Cluttering articles with politics. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, Per above. Xaris333 (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B is the obvious choice, but I agree with User:ThorstenNY that the text should only be used to avoid ambiguity. Kahastok talk 11:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. I fail to see how anything else could work in practice, especially as the X (now Y) formulation is standard across historical articles. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C optional notes mean that in practice no notes would be used. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B per Future's comment, and because it's the only logical solution sliceofcodes (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC) — sliceofcodes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B Seems pretty standard, having (now North Macedonia) could be helpful. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 07:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C as per Dash9Z--Azeryion (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — Azeryion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option C: without strong feelings and to avoid confusion to the use of a term with many diverse applications. something like "North Macedonia (then named Republic of Macedonia)" would be informative and accurate. Simply Macedonia certainly not, because after the Prespa agreement the term Macedonia (without Ro ) will refer to the entire geographical region. If we were to keep the old name then it has to be Republic of Macedonia because its more specific to the country now named as NM. -- Stevepeterson (talk)
• Option B. I do take to heart
  BITE-Y behavior. I guess we're kind of stuck with the potential footnote edit wars. We'll deal (I hope). ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 03:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B, as always in such circumstances. We don't actually do it any other way. The other "options" are not viable, being misleading and no longer accurate in the case of Opt. A, or a falsification of historical facts in the case of Opt. C. This his closely akin to how we treat changed names of people, and we should follow the exact same pattern (Opt. B). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B This is the easiest one. In fact, Option A and B are the same with the main difference that A may be misleading in some contexts and B includes the necessary clarification note. Option C is simply not applicable for periods when the name 'North Macedonia' did not exist.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Obvious choice.Yannismarou (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. That construction is fine.MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. GStojanov (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C for the most part, primarily to avoid future confusion/save time. If the article mentions Macedonia/North Macedonia informally, then I think it would be best to simply refer to it as North Macedonia. However, in the context of 1991-2019, I don't think the country should be referred to as the Republic of North Macedonia, since that would imply that that was the formal name of the country. To give a similar example, I would point to Iran. It's easiest to refer to the country as Iran in e.g. the 1920s, but technically it was still known as Persia until 1935. Orser67 (talk)
• Option B, I think this option is the most logical, as other examples of similar historical name changes can be found throughout Wikipedia. --Jesuiseduardo (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A, wouldn't make any misleadings, as the country was and still is Macedonia by its name. - Македонец (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B seems to be the logic followed in other similar cases for example Shaba I.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A or B no way C. --Lepourquoipas (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A or B Both options are fine by me. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A, because the Prespa Agreement came into force on 12 February 2019, while previously the original Constitution of the internationally recognized State that exists on that territory was in force. ObjectiveBoy (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC) — ObjectiveBoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B, because that's what we do otherwise. Who would write about "Malawi" in something from 1958, for example? You'd say "Nyasaland" and throw in "(now Malawi)" if appropriate. Who would write about "Pakistan" in something from 1903? You'd say "India" or "British India", and throw in "(now part of Pakistan)" if appropriate. Who would write about "Soviet Union" in something from 1921? You'd say "RSFSR" with "(later Soviet Union)". There's no reason to treat (North) Macedonia differently. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B - Виолетова (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B - Gordi (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC) — Gordi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option B per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Filip M (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Filip M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option C with small flexibility for both Republic of Macedonia and former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, depending on context. We can hardly do less than the NM government, which uses "Republic of North Macedonia" retroactively even in the official announcement of the renaming: Amendments [...] which the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia adopted on January 11th 2019, which is earlier than the entry into force of the renaming. However, there are cases where it is worth mentioning the name under which North Macedonia was known at a given time or a given event, e.g. North Macedonia appeared in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1998 and subsequent years as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Place Clichy (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C with optional (then Republic of Macedonia) or (then FYROM), for three reasons:

1) North Macedonia is not a new country, it is the same 1991-present entity, which had a disputed name and now has an undisputed name.

2) This is the clearest and least confusing option and creates the least need for clarifcations e.g. will Zoran Zaev's page have to refer to him as the Prime Minister of Macedonia (2017-2019) and North Macedonia (2019-present)

3) As Place Clichy pointed out, North Macedonia's own government has applied the new terminology retroactively and is required to do so by the Prespa Agreement

Kkyriakop (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (historical names)

• Clarification of my concerns. The way B is worded right now, some editors might take it as license to add something like “now-Macedonia” pretty much everywhere, which is not something I would want to support. Is it possible to clarify here or with our votes for B that any optional note should be used sparingly and only to avoid ambiguity? Otherwise we might end up with countless instances of unnecessarily unwieldy terms. Unfortunately there is ample precedent for such uncalled-for hyper-correctness. I’m thinking of people wrongly insisting on constructs such as “the former GDR” (when referring to East Germany between 1945 and 1990) and “the former Soviet Union”. —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There may be a problem with how restrictive the wording is. If we are intending to talk about the country in the past, and we don't use "North Macedonia", we are already disregarding the common name. Thus we should use the name used at the time. Therefore, I don't think it would be wrong to rename Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 to "F.Y.R. Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007". In this case using "Macedonia" makes no sense, as it isn't the common name, and it isn't the name that was used either. It's the common name at the time the article refers to. It's like calling the Byzantine Empire "Rhomania" because that was the common name at the time. --Antondimak (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is anybody going to clarify if that will be allowed? --Antondimak (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with @Antondimak: here. Even tough my preference goes toward using North Macedonia most of the time, as we would say Byzantine Empire, or Cambodia even for the period when this country renamed itself Kampuchea, when it is worth referring to a historical name it should be the historical name used in context, not systematically "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia". Articles about participation in UN, Olympics, Eurovision, relations with the European Union or Council of Europe come to mind. Place Clichy (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  Philly boy92, Despotak, Tomica, Jingiby, ThorstenNY, StevenHal, FlavrSavr, Number 57, Argean, Dash9Z, StanProg, Resnjari, SilentResident, Wiz9999, Frenchmalawi, Xaris333, Kahastok, Thryduulf, Laurel Lodged, Sliceofcodes, BrandonXLF, Azeryion, Stevepeterson, MJL, SMcCandlish, Kiril Simeonovski, Yannismarou, MacedonianBoy, GStojanov, Orser67, Jesuiseduardo, Македонец, Twofortnights, Lepourquoipas, Ehrlich91, ObjectiveBoy, Nyttend, Виолетова, Gordi, Paintspot, Filip M, and Place Clichy
  : Tagging all the people who voted to review their vote because the RfC dealine is closing in while there has been little to no argumentation on this subject and some points have remained untackled.
  • No change to my vote. And no, we are definitely not going to retroactively reintroduce "Former Yugoslav". That was never the "common name", and the previous RfC established a clear consensus that "common name" applies across all domains and that we don't follow domain-specific exceptions. The common name pre-2019 was "Macedonia" and nothing else, and there's no reason to change that approach now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that "Macedonia" isn't the common name. The common name is "North Macedonia". If we are going to use the official name at the time, then we should use "Macedonia" in most contexts, and "fYRoM" for the very limited subset where it was official. I however propose to use the currect common name, that being "North Macedonia", retroactively, as we have done for almost all other cases where we are dealing with a defunct name, and as is the current practice of the government of North Macedonia, which itself uses the term retroactively. The Eurovision example where the official entry was under "fYRoM" was just an example where using "Macedonia" retroactively would be most ninsensical. We would be using "Macedonia" for the country commonly and officially called "North Macedonia" and entered into a competition under the name "fYRoM". --Antondimak (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What makes you think that we would suddenly have to go by "official" names when talking about the past? Plain Macedonia was, and still is, the common name when referring to that time period. And "former Yugoslav..." was neither common, nor official, in any context ever. It wasn't a name at all, remember? It was merely an ad-hoc circumscription used by those whose policy it was to avoid using the actual name, but that didn't stop the actual name being Macedonia, in all contexts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't have to, but that was that official description in certain contexts. Now, both the common and official names, when referring to the present and the past, including the ise by the government of North Macedonia, is "North Macedonia". Trying to use plain "Macedonia" because it was the common name at the time the article is referring to is equivalent to calling the Beijing "Peking" in articles referring to periods when it was still the common name, or Byzantium "Rhomania" or "Greek Empire" according to the common name by Eastern and Western writters respectively. I'm not aware for Wikipedia doing what you propose for any other name except, if the RfC closes as it is, "Macedonia". I would also want to point out that saying that "Macedonia" became official in all contexts is obviously factually incorrect, and I'm pretty sure you know it. --Antondimak (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your parallel with Beijing is fallacious, since Beijing was never renamed – the difference is purely that of different foreign transliterations of what is still exactly the same name. If you're going to make comparisons with city renamings, then cases like Leningrad/St.Petersburg are far more pertinent (and yes, we speak of Leningrad retroactively for those periods where that was its name). The Byzantium comparison is even more fallacious, because in that case we have to work with the exonym throughout for the simple reason that that's what all the literature does. And yes, it is perfectly true that "Macedonia" was the one and only official name this state ever had, in all contexts. Why do I have to repeat myself? The "former Yugoslav" formula wasn't an official name, because it simply wasn't a name at all – it was merely a workaround that allowed third parties to avoid using the actual name. It was explicitly designed to never be more than that. It's also not strictly correct to say that Macedonia participated in certain international environments "under that designation". It didn't. It was only third parties that used the "FYR" formula; Macedonian authorities themselves always used the constitutional name even in interactions with institutions like the UN, EU or NATO. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure which Wikipedia policy applies here... --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that an effort should be made (post-RfC) to change historical occurrences of the state name from the far less acceptable "Macedonia" to the far more palatable "Republic of Macedonia" which was the official term for the state of North Macedonia during the 1991 to 2019 period. Of course I can see certain instances where this may not be possible, but I think it would be reasonable for this to happen in most cases. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth would be "less acceptable" about plain "Macedonia" than about "Republic of"? It was just as official as the long form, and it was clearly the common predominant form in international English-speaking usage. Of course we will continue to treat it according to the simple law of good writing: use the simpler and shorter form where possible, the longer form where necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because of

WP:POVNAMING. "Republic of Macedonia" is specific to the state. "Macedonia" is not, and could be referring to the state or the greek region as well (in the historical context). - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm getting more and more fed up with people trying to re-litigate the 2009 RfC here. POVNAMING has no relevance – the necessity for names to be NPOV is explicitly restricted to descriptive titles, not proper names. And the theoretical ambiguity of "Macedonia" has never been more of a problem than that of "Georgia", "Azerbaijan" or "Luxembourg". Our policy is to deal with ambiguity if and where it actually occurs in context – which is a very small amount of cases in practice, because in most contexts where we refer to a country, it is prima facie obvious to readers that it's a country and not some subregion or whatever we're referring to. This never was a problem when referring to Macedonia, and it's not suddenly going to become one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I honestly don't understand what's the purpose of this discussion on historical use of terms, and I don't see any reason for reconsidering my vote. I sense also some revisionist tones in some comments, which are completely unnecessary and rather annoying in my opinion. Things are very simple imho: events that took place during the 1991-2019 happened in "Macedonia", just like events that took place before 1991 happened in "SR Macedonia, Yugoslavia". There was a consensus for the use of terms, and I don't see what allows us to question that consensus retrospectively. This applies also when we are talking about the participation of the country in annual or other regular events, if we are referring to that particular period. Is there any reason to rename e.g. Ceylon at the 1960 Summer Olympics to Sri Lanka or to Dominion of Ceylon? --Argean (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sri Lanka participated in the 1960 Olympics under the name "Ceylon". North Macedonia participated in Eurovision under the description "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Yes, if Sri Lanka had participated in the 1960 Olympics as the "Sarandib", then it wouldn't make sense to call the article "Ceylon at the 1960 Summer Olympics", we would call it "Sri Lanka at the 1960 Summer Olympics", maybe with a clarification later in the article that it was registered under the name "Sarandib", which is what I propose. Or we could call it "Sarandib at the 1960 Summer Olympics", which would still make more sense than "Sri Lanka at the 1960 Summer Olympics". --Antondimak (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are using the example of Olympic Games, I guess you are aware that some countries participate with their official names: "Russian Federation", "Islamic Republic of Iran" "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" among others. Still I see that relevant Wikipedia article titles for the 2016 Olympics are

Republic of China at the 1960 Summer Olympics, although the country participated under the name "Formosa". Really I don't know why we are doing this discussion... --Argean (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Because unlike Russia or Iran, "Macedonia" is NOT the common name, as we have unanimously established in other parts of the RfC, it just was the common name in the past. Taiwan is also called "Republic of China" today, North Macedonia isn't called "Macedonia" today. I also don't understand why it would be "Ceylon" in the hypothetical scenario, as this wouldn't be the official nor the common name. --Antondimak (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm afraid that you are not following me, so there is no use in continuing this conversation. I just want to remind that "Macedonia" WAS the common name of the country for the 1991-2019 period, and "Macedonia", not "North Macedonia" participated in international events of that period. Just like

Khmer Republic at the 1972 Summer Olympics and not Cambodia, Zaire at the 1984 Summer Olympics and not DR Congo, Gold Coast at the 1952 Summer Olympics and not Ghana, etc. Changing the names of countries in such an anachronistic fashion, would simply be a pointless revisionism. --Argean (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

All those countries participated under those names, but not North Macedonia, which participated under fYRoM. In the case of Taiwan, we call it the "Republic of China" because it's still called other, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. But if you think there is no worth to continuing the conversation that's fine. --Antondimak (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll explain patiently for one last time that Wikipedia uses in page titles common names PAST or PRESENT depending on what was the common name at the time the article refers to and NOT the name under which a country participated in an event, NEITHER what is the common name today! I'll give you one final example: Malaysia was known as Malaya back in 1956 and their Olympic Committee beared the name "Federation of Malaya", but still the relevant article is Malaya at the 1956 Summer Olympics, not Malaysia at the 1956 Summer Olympics, neither Federation of Malaya at the 1956 Summer Olympics. Noone cares what was the name under which a country participated in an event, past or present. We use names that are recognizable and unambiguous (has any other Macedonia ever participated in the Eurovision Song Contest?) and we NEVER introduce names of one time period to refer to another. Your whole argument is a badly constructed sophism. Do you really can't see that? --Argean (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For current usage of respective terms for the people of the Republic of North Macedonia, see the reliable sources list.

The following proposals are not seen as contentious and are grouped together for convenience.

• Option A:

• The main article should be titled North Macedonia
• North Macedonia and Republic of North Macedonia should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in articles about the present.
• The language, ethnicity, and culture should be called Macedonian.

• Option B: One or more of the above proposals is opposed, and further discussion is needed first.

Survey (housekeeping)

• support (i.e. "Option A"); these are straightforward common sense, and the naming of the main article has already been discussed and found very broad consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A --Despotak (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A --
  blah) 19:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option A consensus was achieved on main article title (though I still disagree with it). --Local hero ^talk 19:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A. — Tom^(T2ME) 20:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A: Jingiby (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A —ThorstenNY (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A --Antondimak (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Most major news sources call the country North Macedonia or a derivative, and the agreement did not change the name of the culture etc. --Danski454 (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A with a possible additional clause to reaffirm all uncontested policies of
  WP:MOSMAC. --Argean (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option A --StanProg (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A - Resnjari (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A and this pairs pretty well with Option A in the "Nationality" section, which helps avoid confusion. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A: I sort of crystal-ball-predict that the 'language', 'ethnicity', and 'culture' stuff actually being looked at again at some point in the future, but as of right now all points listed are completely uncontroversial, and should be adopted immediately without issue. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B respecting COMMON NAME convention. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A. Libhye (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Xaris333 (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A, I view this as simple housekeeping. This can be revisited in the future if there is a reason to, but I don't see it. Kahastok talk 11:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A — sliceofcodes (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC) — sliceofcodes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option A – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 07:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option ACinadon36 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A logical--Azeryion (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — Azeryion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option A - the renaming of the main article was so strongly supported that it is surprising that it is being discussed again.
  Oculi (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option A -- Stevepeterson (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A with reservations as articulated by Local hero. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 03:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A, since this was already decided. RfCs are not an opportunity to forum-shop against RMs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A GStojanov (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Orser67 (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Pretty much universal at his point. -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A -Виолетова (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A -R ašo 19:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A - Gordi (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC) — Gordi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Option A Filip M (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Filip M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Discussion (housekeeping)

• I will agree with A if I remain alone in this, but are you sure we should keep "Macedonian" when referring to culture? I agree it's sufficient in most cases, but in certain contexts (like when ethnic Macedonians and Greek Macedonians are mentioned in the same article), I think it's very confusing not to use an identifier. Wouldn't it be simpler to allow editors to use the identifier "Slavic" in contexts where they believe it will make understanding the article simpler? --Antondimak (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've always allowed ad-hoc disambiguators if and when they are truly needed in context. The old text of
    WP:NCMAC goes into some detail about that. It's a matter of common sense. "North" will sometimes work as a legitimate disambiguator now, just as "Slavic" always has, and even "former Yugoslav" might have done in some contexts. I suppose that principle should silently be carried over into the new text that's going to be hacked out from the results of this RfC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I agree then. --Antondimak (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-Housekeeping

Just for clarity, since people seem to be wondering, the reason this section is here is to get a consensus that meets the standard that Arbcom laid out in June 2018 in response to the Prespa Agreement:

The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors.

Given the on-wiki history of the dispute, and the fact that the agreement remains controversial in both countries IRL, it seems a good idea to prevent future dispute by ensuring that i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Kahastok talk 17:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposals that do not fit into the above categories may be added here during the early period of discussion.

"Northern Macedonia" and "Southern Macedonia" Redirects

• Option A: "Northern Macedonia" and "Southern Macedonia" should both redirect to "Macedonia (region)".
• Option B: "Northern Macedonia" should redirect to "North Macedonia", and "Southern Macedonia" should redirect to "Macedonia (Greece)".
• Option C: "Northern Macedonia" should redirect to "North Macedonia", and "Southern Macedonia" should redirect to "Macedonia (region)".
• Option D: "Northern Macedonia" should redirect to "Macedonia (region)", and "Southern Macedonia" should redirect to "Macedonia (Greece)".
• Option E: "Northern Macedonia" and "Southern Macedonia" should both redirect to "Macedonia".
• Option F: The redirects should be deleted.
• Option G: "Northern Macedonia" should redirect to "North Macedonia", and "Southern Macedonia" should redirect to "Macedonia".

Survey (redirects)

• Option C "Northern Macedonia" should definitely redirect to the country as it seems natural that many may mix "North" and "Northern". "Southern Macedonia", however, should only redirect to Macedonia (Greece) if and when that becomes used as a name for the region, which I have yet to see. There is logic behind redirecting to Greek Macedonia (i.e. it is south of North Macedonia), but my slight preference is to redirect to Macedonia (region). --Local hero ^talk 19:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Ultra vires. This RfC should define a general guideline but shouldn't micro-manage individual pages, least of all obscure redirects with little use. 19:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option B: Most logical. Jingiby (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option E It may seem logical that "Northern Macedonia" would refer to the country and "Southern Macedonia" to the Greek region, but it's more complicated than that. We are talking about a region with a long history of competing state-sponsored propagandas and shifting terms, and there is a long history of use of these two terms before the Prespa deal. I have seen "Northern Macedonia" used to refer to 1) the country now named North Macedonia, 2) a bigger region including the country and Pirin Macedonia, and 3) the Northern part of Greek Macedonia, and "Southern Macedonia" used to refer to 1) Greek Macedonia, 2) the Southern part of Greek Macedonia, and 3) the Southern part of the country of North Macedonia. And all these uses aren't rare. In fact I have personally found them with about equal frequency in English-language sources. So I think they should redirect to the region as both terms are largely ambiguous. If they meant something specific the user can navigate from there. --Antondimak (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. Most logical and the status quo, which shouldn’t be upset unnecessarily. I could be persuaded to support Option C if presented with compelling arguments that there is a meaningful distinction between Southern Macedonia and the Greek region. In other words, do sources ever use Southern Macedonia in describing something meaningfully different from the Greek region? —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain and formally expressing my disapproval of incorporating to the RfC an issue that should be handled separately and possibly topically. I don't see what's the need of voting on 6 different proposals that address the issue superficially and partially, not taking into account both linguistic/semiological and technical considerations, e.g. the fact that South/Southern translate to the same exact word in Greek. I would like to take the chance to note also that
  South Macedonia (which was excluded by the discussion) currently redirects to Macedonia (Greece). --Argean (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B. Per ThorstenNY. Dash9Z (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B - Resnjari (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option Ε Initially supported Option C but fellow Wikipedians have since updated me on the issue, in the Discussion, below, and explained to me the meanings of the terms "South/Southern". Option C: Since it would be
  WP:OR to have South Macedonia redirected to Greece when none called it like that. The Greek part of Macedonia was called "Macedonia" by the Greeks and "Aegean Macedonia" by the ethnic Macedonians. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option C: As Local hero stated, the potential for users attempting to find "North Macedonia" and using "Northern Macedonia" instead is too great to be ignored. This should not be an issue to the people of North Macedonia, as "North" is new to them anyway and "Northern" wouldn't really confuse or upset them any more than the change itself does. To Greeks on the other hand, the term "Southern Macedonia" is unacceptable, and to some, downright insulting. It is better to avoid offence or misunderstanding by sending this to the geographic "Macedonia (region)" article instead. - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option E. Both Northern Macedonia and Southern Macedonia are used to mean multiple things, so readers should be taken to the disambiguation page, where they can find out where they want to go. For Northern Macedonia, A and D are bad options because most readers will be searching for North Macedonia, and B and C are not good alternatives either, since Northern Macedonia doesn't necessarily mean the same as North Macedonia. For Southern Macedonia, B and D are bad options because Southern Macedonia doesn't necessarily refer to an area in Greece, and options A and C are bad because they take readers directly to Macedonia (region) when they might want Macedonia (Greece). Basically, all other options than E are fraught with problems. Libhye (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Mix of B and F: "Northern Macedonia" should redirect to the country, delete "Southern Macedonia" because this name is hardly being used. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option E or F Xaris333 (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option E The term "Northern Macedonia" must not redirect to North Macedonia when it is used in terms of geography, because there is already the Bulgarian region that is in the north. The term Northwestern Macedonia may refer to the country North Macedonia and the term Northeastern Macedonia may refer to the Bulgarian region. However, these terms make everything complicated without a good reason. Moreover, the terms "South Macedonia" and "Southern Macedonia" must not refer to Macedonia in Greece for the reason explained below. To be neutral, I think the safest option is that both terms redirect to "Macedonia" (best option for me) or they are deleted. The Prespa agreement says: "When reference is made to the First Party, these terms (i.e., Macedonia and Macedonian) denote not only the area and people of the northern region of the First Party, but also their attributes, as well as the Hellenic civilization, history, culture, and heritage of that region from antiquity to present day." On the other hand, for the Second Party says: "... these terms denote its territory, language, people and their attributes, with their own history, culture, and heritage, distinctly different from those referred to under Article 7(2).". The Prespa agreement makes clear that the two countries have a different definition of what is Macedonia. For Greece, Macedonia is only the region in Greece based on the definition of the ancient Macedonian Kingdom. On the other hand, North Macedonia uses the modern geographical definition, and this is the reason that is called North Macedonia. If we call Macedonia, Greece as "South Macedonia" that means that we use the definition of North Macedonia to refer to the Macedonia region in Greece. In other words, it means that we take a side, and wikipedia must not take a side. Peace in balkans (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option E. If we accept that "Macedonia" might mean
  WP:RFD. Kahastok talk 11:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option G (which I've just added). The primary topic for "Northern Macedonia" is the country now called "North Macedonia", but there is no primary topic for "Southern Macedonia" (roughly equally split between the parts of the historical region that are now in Greece and the southern part of the country formerly known as Macedonia)". Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not F. "Northern Macedonia" is an obvious error for "North Macedonia", so either it needs to redirect there, or it needs to be a redirect pointing somewhere else. And if we have a "Northern Macedonia" redirect and an article entitled "North Macedonia", people are going to expect there to be pages entitled "South Macedonia" and "Southern Macedonia". I don't know what's best, but people are going to be searching for these terms, and whether we redirect them to Macedonia or to a specific article, they need to be blue links. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C because "Northern" can be a mistake for "North". Anything else should refer to the Macedonia (region) page — sliceofcodes (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B (or G) seems the most logical. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 07:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B: without strong feelings. |Correct would be to redirect both to the region, because in this case Macedonia refers to the geographical region not to a political entity ie a Republic. But many users or editors might confuse North with Northern so we need a redirect for North Macedonia. Before prespa agreement South/Southern Macedonia wasnt associated with anything so we should create redirects for South and Southern now. -- Stevepeterson (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option E. and failing that Option G. I really do not like this question in all honesty. I expressed as much during the drafting process. I can't say I am that surprised that another option was added, but here we are. Regardless of what's been said, however, anyone native english speaker who types those words into the Wikipedia search box deserve to get a disambiguation page. That is the final comment I have to say on the matter until the end of time. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 03:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option E. There are too many uses of such phrases that long pre-date the current political borders and the polity rename.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Northern (adjective) and North (noun in a function of an adjective) mean the same. MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, though I quite wonder if South/Southern Macedonia will ever really found frequent usage, especially in relation to the Greek region. Whoever says Southern Ireland? There is currently only one incoming link, at Clement of Ohrid, and it does not refer to the Greek region. Place Clichy (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option E. Just from looking at the map on the disambig page, a fair amount of Bulgaria, and parts of Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, and possibly Greece could be classified as being in "Northern Macedonia." Orser67 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option E, As this page includes a list of all articles related to the name it seems the most logical option. If someone was confused, this page would direct them in the right direction. -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, C, or G. No matter what, "NORTHERN Macedonia" should redirect to "NORTH Macedonia". "Northern" can be a mistake for "North" - it's become a common mistake with some sources accidentally calling the country "Northern Macedonia". And per Nyttend above, Not F. (" "Northern Macedonia" is an obvious error for "North Macedonia", so either it needs to redirect there, or it needs to be a redirect pointing somewhere else. ") Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B - Виолетова (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B - the North redirect is clear. I think this is most logical option for "South Macedonia", but a deletion of the South redirect for not having a clear target could also be justified. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Filip M (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Filip M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]