Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/other articles

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This page is for discussion of how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in other articles. For special cases that may potentially require exceptions, see the subpages on articles focussing on Greece and international organisations. This page is only concerned with conventions for all other articles.

All letters on proposals were derived from proposals made during the first phase of the discussion.

Please endorse only one proposal, and leave a (preferably) short comment if you wish. Direct any discussion of other users' endorsements to the talk page.

Statement of question

• What designation should be used to refer to the country constitutionally known as the Republic of Macedonia in articles not covered by the special cases of Greece-related articles and articles related to international organizations?

Proposal A: Disambiguate only as needed

1. "Republic of Macedonia", the full self-identifying official name, will be used in all contexts where other countries would also be called by their full official names (e.g. "Russian Federation", "Federal Republic of Germany", etc.)
2. Plain "Macedonia" can be used to refer to the country in all other articles, in contexts where this is practically unambiguous. Examples of contexts that are typically unambiguous:
   1. Lists and enumerations of countries (including lists in article text, many navigation boxes and similar items).
   2. Geographical specifiers where the reader naturally expects the name of a country, e.g. as a specifier of a placename in a biography article (e.g. "X was born in Tetovo, Macedonia")
   3. Discussions dealing with international politics, economy or similar topics, where the context makes it clear that present-day countries are referred to.
   4. Subsequent references in contexts where the referent has previously been established through some appropriate disambiguation.
3. "Republic of Macedonia" can also be used as the simplest and most unobtrusive form of disambiguation, where disambiguation with one of the other "Macedonias" is practically needed. Examples where this may be the case include:
   1. articles dealing with both the modern period and earlier periods, where older Macedonian entities could be at issue.
   2. articles dealing with geography, where reference to a geographical or sub-national meaning of "Macedonia" could also be plausible
   3. articles that also mention the subnational divisions of Bulgaria and/or Greece
   4. initial sentences in the lead of an article, where "Republic of Macedonia" is an essential part of the definition of the topic (including articles where the title itself has plain "Macedonia", as per "Other page titles: Proposal A").
4. Other ad-hoc disambiguators may be used in addition to "Republic of", where the context demands making a disambiguating contrast even more salient.
   1. This will usually only be the case where the country needs to be mentioned in direct contrast with one of the other "Macedonias". Possible examples include, but are not limited to: "the independent Republic of Macedonia as well as the wider geographical region of Macedonia", "Greek Macedonia and the neighboring Republic of Macedonia" etc. Like all disambiguating qualifiers, such additions will usually be required only once, on first introducing the relevant contrast.
   2. The qualifier "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" may occasionally be used according to the same principle, in contexts where the Yugoslavian past of the area or the political events surrounding the breakup of Yugoslavia are the most salient anchor point for disambiguation. If this option is used, the wiki-linking should only comprise "Republic of Macedonia", because only that part of the expression is the actual name; also, the addition should not be used mechanically every time the country is mentioned, but just like any other disambiguator, normally only once.
5. Former Yugoslav or any of its abbreviations should otherwise not be used. (For possible exceptions, see the specialised sub-pages).

Rationale

This proposal largely reflects stable Wikipedia practice during the last years.

• The earlier WP:MOSMAC draft gave higher prominence to using "Republic of Macedonia" as the default reference, but also allowed plain "Macedonia" in unambiguous contexts like lists of countries and on subsequent mentioning after disambiguation.
• Using plain "Macedonia" as the default form is a straightforward application of WP:COMMONNAMES, as it matches the practice found in the huge majority of outside sources and in common everyday usage.
• Where disambiguation is practically needed (to be determined by common sense on a case-by-case basis), "Republic of..." is the simplest disambiguating qualifier that is easily understood, clearly establishes the referent (only independent countries are typically referred to as "Republic of..."), and is compatible with both sets of criteria in WP:NCON: common English use, and preference for self-identifying names.
• The wording of this proposal is deliberately open in some parts because it is unrealistic to expect that all possible contexts in which the country might be named could be foreseen and settled in a single watertight set of rules. Once it is established as a matter of principle that both plain "M." and "Republic of M." will be in frequent use, continuing disruptive disputes over individual instances are unlikely.

Users who endorse Proposal A

• —Nightstallion 10:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• B is not acceptable because it allows neither "born in Tetovo, Macedonia" nor "... the geography of the Republic of Macedonia. The south of Macedonia...". Hans Adler 11:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• man with one red shoe 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• More flexible, yet less prone to any gaming than the other proposals. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• This seems like a very pragmatic and workable solution. Plain "Macedonia" is a natural abbreviation of the formal name, and it's important to be able to use it in situations where confusion is unlikely. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• (Taivo (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC))
• — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• First and only choice. The other options have issues such as Hans Adler's example above. Horologium (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• I agree entirely with Hans Adler; the alternatives are unworkable. This is by far the most practical approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• — Imbris (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• With the necessary understanding that FYROM gets mentioned where the context of the naming dispute is notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• B and C would needlessly clutter sentences with "Republic of", even where the context is clear. Jafeluv (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support as above; the argument for E below that we must, to have uniform styles within an article, adopt the style of any document we quote is invalid. To see this, consider that it implies that it is impossible to quote two documents in different styles - and that it claims that any article which quotes "the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" cannot use simple Rhode Island thereafter. (C is fundamentally invalid; we are bound - by neutrality- not to attempt to solve international disputes.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Will lead to the least conflict. Jd2718 (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Most practical solution. --Folantin (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Mostly per Sheffield Steel. Also per simple common sense that says to treat this country just like any other country and disambiguate only when necessary. Don't make more difficult rules than necessary, especially if the reason for the extra rules is to appease a group of editors who care more about national interests than Wikipedia's content policies. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• SheffieldSteel sums this up very nicely. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Per Eluchil404 and Sheffield Steel. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• --Cybercobra (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Flexible, and per Heimstern. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal B: Use consistent naming except for a fixed set of occasions

1. "Republic of Macedonia" would be used as the simplest and most unobtrusive and unambiguous name in all other cases except in the circumstances covered below.
2. Plain "Macedonia" can be used only in the following set of strongly unambiguous contexts:
   1. Lists of countries.
   2. Enumerations of countries in running text
   3. In articles where the context is clearly about present-day countries (e.g. about national statistics or about international economies where only countries are referred to, etc.)
   4. In articles where the context is the country itself (e.g. the country article itself, the country's national elections, etc.)
3. Extra ad-hoc disambiguators may be used where the country needs to be mentioned in direct contrast with one of the other "Macedonias". See proposal A for examples.
4. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as a name for the country or any of its abbreviations, should not be used except when it is for commentary of the UN term and not about the country itself. (For possible exceptions, see the specialised sub-page of this discussion about naming in pages about several international organizations).
   1. The qualifier "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" may occasionally be used in contexts where the actual meaning of the qualifier, i.e: "Yugoslav" and "former" is relevant to the text (e.g. in history sections). For specifics of that kind of use see proposal A.

Rationale

• This proposal is stronger in the sense that it is a convention more easily able to be followed word by word since it has a clear wording. By that sense there is no need for multiple discussions to be opened in multiple articles about whether "Macedonia" to refer to the country is ambiguous or not.
• Consistency is sought for. Under this proposal, any user will be unlikely to encounter different names to refer to the entity except only in the fixed set of cases where the name "Macedonia" is much less possible to be thought of as not referring to a modern country.
• "Republic of Macedonia" is compatible with both sets of criteria in WP:NCON: common English use, and preference for self-identifying names.
• WP:NAME suggests to use the most simple name that is not unambiguous. This proposal includes a fixed set of occasions where the shorter name is not ambiguous and eliminates the possibility of ambiguity in other cases while also using an easily recognizable name.

Rationale against

• Insistence on a fixed default rule makes this proposal less flexible and less adaptable to individual cases that may not have been foreseen during drafting.
• This proposal lacks the provision for the use of simple "M." on repeated occurrences after preceding disambiguation, a practice that has already been in widespread use and never caused problems. This is a plain matter of common sense and good writing.

Users who endorse Proposal B

• As the original filling party of this proposal I endorse it as a first choice however I could also endorse D in principle. Let me note that the set of occasions of strongly unambiguous contexts could be expanded if necessary. Like all other proposals common sense would be still applicable under this one. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• First choice (second choice is C). About the rationales against: I agree with the first one (but I don't see that fact as a problem), and I disagree with a second ("Republic of Macedonia" is a very good common sense and good writing, imho) Dc76\^talk 20:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal C: Use "Republic of Macedonia"

1. Use "Republic of Macedonia" as the name to refer to the country in all occasions.
2. Former Yugoslav... will not be used in the same way as in proposal B.

Rationale

• This proposal expresses the only naming proposal that can exhibit the maximum degree of consistency throughout Wikipedia. Since plain "Macedonia" will be ambiguous in certain occasions the name "Republic of Macedonia" would not (will only likely need some ad-hoc qualifiers, in situations mentioned in the previous proposals, that lie on editors' choice)

Rationale against

• Too inflexible. This proposal ignores that the addition of "Republic of" is itself only justified as a disambiguator, but disambiguation is always context-dependent and must not be forced mechanically into contexts where it is not practically needed.
• The use of formal names is generally deprecated (see WP:COMMONNAMES) except in circumstances where disambiguation is required. In most circumstances, plain "Macedonia" will refer unambiguously to the country; therefore no disambiguation will be needed.

Users who endorse Proposal C

• C is my first choice. Second choice B. In my opinion, the recent disturbances in Macedonia-related Wiki articles were totally unnecessary, as unlike cited reference cases like Ireland, Luxembourg or America, there is a recognized international dispute here, and an accepted binding obligation to resolve it. While the latter is yet to happen, it is already clear at this stage of the process that neither ‘Republic of Macedonia’ nor ‘Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ would be among the eventual choices. Apcbg (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• second choice (first choice is B). Dc76\^talk 20:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal E: Describe not prescribe

1. Use whatever name is decided to be the article's name.
2. Do not use an exception for lists of countries.
3. Disambiguate in articles whose context might cause the agreed upon name to be ambiguous.
4. On all articles related to countries, organizations, corporations and other entities use whatever name that entity would use (assuming that the said entity has a stance in the issue). This would, of course, exclude names that are provably offensive.

Rationale

• This proposal aims to be lean and simple, without the numerous subcases and exceptions mentioned elsewhere. (see Occam's razor)
• This proposal aims for consistency and precision among our articles.
• It also preserves Wikipedia's guideline on disambiguation.
• Make our articles truly descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive, by reflecting the views of each entity. This expresses the plurality of views in our world.
• Preserve accuracy, precision and internal consistency, by not misquoting any entity.

Rationale against

• Same arguments as those against Proposal C for Greece-related articles and for international organisations. Blatantly contradicting the rules of WP:NCON, which demand adherence to common English usage while additionally taking account of the self-identifying preferences of the entity being named, but explicitly not the preferences of any third parties.
• This approach would effectively impose a "sympathetic point of view", as opposed to Wikipedia's neutral point of view, by forcing the usage of terminology favoured by the entity in question rather than a consistent form of naming throughout Wikipedia. As such, it would fundamentally violate the rules of WP:NPOV. It would certainly not be "descriptive rather than prescriptive" despite what the very misleading title of this proposal says.
• This proposal ignores that if the main article of the country should be named anything other than plain "M.", it will only be for the purpose of disambiguation, but disambiguation must always be used in a context-sensitive way and cannot be forced mechanically into contexts where it is not practically needed.
• The use of formal names is generally deprecated (see WP:COMMONNAMES) except in circumstances where disambiguation is required. In most circumstances, plain "Macedonia" will refer unambiguously to the country; therefore no disambiguation will be needed.

Users who endorse Proposal E

• Per reasons stated above. Pel thal (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Guidelines WP:NCON and WP:COMMONNAMES are not relevant to this section because they deal not with how an article should be referred to from other articles but with how articles themselves should be named. The Manual of Style's section on internal consistency explicitly states that: "[...] style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole". The later part reaffirms the fact that we don't have to use the same way of referring to the country in all articles. The earlier part explains why we should not use two different ways of referring to the Republic in the same article. The only way to accurately quote an organization is to use its conventions. Thus, in order to be internally consistent, accurate, and not to misquote the organization, we have to use whatever variant the organization uses to refer to the country. The proposal conforms to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by assuming an impartial tone; it describes (as opposed to prescribing) how an organization in this article refers to the other country. Finally, I like how this solution is lean and simple, without overdoing it with numerous subcases and exceptions: the fewer the exceptions, the less likely users are to wikilawyer over them, the more time they'll get to spend on healthy content editing. --Radjenef (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, whatever people choose to call it.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.