• Archive 1
• Archive 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro and con

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

Pro

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

Con

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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