This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
North Macedonia鈥揘ATO relations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | A news item involving North Macedonia鈥揘ATO relations was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 March 2020. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 27, 2024. |
The Centralized discussion set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. (Pages 2 and 4 deal with the conventions most directly affecting this article.)
Fut.Perf. 鈽 07:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Accession of Macedonia to NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
There are two pics. They are of graffiti in Ohrid. Recent removals are on reasons based on wp:idontlikeit (i.e: "This is anti-nato propaganda. And makes the article not neutral" [1]) more then anything else. There is a segment of the population that opposes NATO. That has fluctuated over the years. The data in the article on support numbers is from 2008. No editor has bothered to put more current numbers about support/opposition in the article and also how that is reflected among the two large communities of Macedonians and Albanians in the country. I don't see why pictures of the sort that has a view about NATO from the country reflected as graffiti should not be in the article. The pictures where taken in Ohrid and these pieces of text where in prominent locations. If people have pictures of pro-NATO sentiment, they are more then welcome to place pictures, etc. Resnjari ( talk) 16:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in [[User:Example|User:Nickname]] or [[User:Example|Nickname]]) can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make your signed comments appear to be from a different person. Alternatives include changing your username and including your account name in addition to the username, e.g. in the form [[User:Example|User:Example]]/Nickname.Resnjari ( talk) 14:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Does it strike nobody else as bizarre to have an image of some random anti-NATO scribble in a section that only talks about strong pro-NATO sentiment in the country from both officials and public opinion? Do we really need to give equal weight to the opinion of a single anonymous hoodlum? Just because the graffiti exists doesn't mean it bears including in an encyclopedia article. 199.247.42.202 ( talk) 13:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
On February 6, 2019, NATO representatives signed a protocol on the accession of Northern Macedonia to NATO. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 95.32.221.161 ( talk) 17:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Given that the country was renamed North Macedonia so that it could enter NATO, should this article be renamed Accession of North Macedonia to NATO? Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 22:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The big question is the name of the accession protocol. I have tried but didn't find it. L.tak ( talk) 19:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
It should be moved to Accession of Northern Macedonia to NATO; Wikipedia rules should not decide what the country is called. The country is now Northern Macedonia, which means that Wikipedia should follow suit and not make its own rules regarding country names. -- Kingerikthesecond ( talk) 17:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I notice that the article has move protection, and can be moved only by an admin. An hour or so ago an editor did a cut-and-paste move, which of course loses the attribution of the history. I've reverted the cut-and-paste and explained to the editor, but it obviously needs an eye keeping open for similar occurrences. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 04:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Greece signed it first but awaits approval from president. Then Slovenia followed and awaits approval as well Xylo kai Gyali ( talk) 15:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Accession of Macedonia to NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Albania also ratified it, [1] Also, since Greece & Slovenia also ratified it, shouldn't the date be also written on the "Negotiation Progress" part? 69.14.238.177 ( talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Accession of North Macedonia to NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The accession protocol was ratified by a couple of goverments and it isn't updated here, I would ask for an update Englans ( talk) 21:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Albania: https://sofiaglobe.com/2019/02/15/albanias-parliament-among-latest-to-ratify-north-macedonias-nato-accession-protocol/ Bulgaria: https://sofiaglobe.com/2019/02/20/bulgarian-parliament-ratifies-north-macedonias-nato-accession-protocol/ Slovenia: http://www.vlada.si/en/media_room/news_from_slovenia/news_from_slovenia/article/slovenia_ratifies_north_macedonias_nato_accession_protocol_62192/ Montenegro: https://twitter.com/MeGovernment/status/1096020256747864064
These are all official. Should be updated now. In which I will do. -- WeifengYang ( talk) 15:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Accession of North Macedonia to NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add date for Albania, Albania ratified it too. [1] [2] Wikicreator1234 ( talk) 00:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Instead of all the edit warring it would be easier if there were separate columns in the table for parliaments, heads of state and the dates of deposting of ratification instruments. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Extended Cut ( talk 鈥 contribs) 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE!!!!! Montenegro will ratify on Friday, March 1! Romania will ratify in March, Denmark and Hungary possibly in April. Croatia, Slovakia, Poland, Turkey and Iceland will also ratify in the coming weeks! The USA will ratify in autumn! 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 80.141.80.1 ( talk) 19:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
ATTENTION! Romania has not ratified so far! Only the commission discussed it! The final vote will be on april 5, according to the website of romanian parliament!
PDF format 2,1. Pl-x 50/2019 Proiectul de Lege pentru ratificarea Protocolului de aderare a Republicii Macedonia de Nord la Tratatul Atlanticului de Nord, semnat la Bruxelles, la 6 februarie 2019 (PL-x 50/2019) - lege ordinar膬 Raport- Comisia pentru politic膬 extern膬 (Adoptare) - distribuit - 26.02.2019 Procedur膬 de urgen牛膬 Prima Camer膬 sesizat膬 - Data prezent膬rii 卯n Biroul permanent 20.02.2019; data la care se 卯mpline艧te termenul constitu牛ional pentru dezbatere 艧i vot final 05.04.2019, potrivit art.75 alin.(2) din Constitu牛ie 艧i art.113 din Regulamentul Camerei Deputa牛ilor 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 80.141.80.1 ( talk) 21:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The United States House of Representatives has nothing to do with ratifying North Macedonia's NATO membership. -- Killuminator ( talk) 22:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The table on the website looks fine, but in the app (android version) a lot of the countries have two rows per country. For some reason a few of the countries have the second row shifted over a column. For instance I'm looking at Slovenia, the second row has 20 February 2019 directly below the country name, Presidential Assent is under the date column and so on. A number of counties without dates (but not all) have the same issue. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 74.254.77.254 ( talk) 13:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE! ROMANIA (SENATE) WILL RATIFY THE PROTOCOL NEXT WEEK! I HAVE NO INFORMATION FROM THE REMAINING 22 STATES SO FAR! 鈥斅燩receding
unsigned comment added by
80.141.84.170 (
talk)
19:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The parliaments of Denmark, Belgium and Slovakia approved the accession. Although the frame of Slovakia is covered by green colour, those of Denmark and Belgium are white. Is there a reason? Ooyamanobutatu ( talk) 12:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I would like to know the reason. Ooyamanobutatu ( talk) 12:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Please do not color country names! 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 109.228.109.137 ( talk 鈥 contribs)
An IP tries to add the Portuguese assembly vote already for some time, and is reverted by another IP. The given ref is this vote (maybe a better overview of the status is at this link, and the reason for reversion seems "Portugal has not ratified yet"). Both can of course be true (and at the same time). Can someone who reads portuguese better than I am and understands the parliamentary process there indicate if this is the final vote of parliament on this matter and what would be the next step? It seems a vote was held in plenary, and that the next step is some kind of signature. Could that be the signature of the president? L.tak ( talk) 20:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The Norwegian parliament approved the accession protocol, but we were recording it as if there had been 72 abstentions. In fact, there were not 72 abstentions, but 72 persons who were not present at the vote (Ikke til stede), as can be seen here (the link is 1 click away from the link given in the article).... Therefore the 72 should be changed to "0" in the abstentions column. An IP has reverted that change (which had this info in the edit summary) without any explanation, so I am restating it... L.tak ( talk) 18:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Canada has ratified accession protocol earlier today. In this table there are columns for House of Commons and Senate. I don't know where to add ratification details. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 95.155.11.46 ( talk) 18:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Why nordic and some other countries have local names of parliaments in the table but Baltic countries don't? -- 90.143.22.135 ( talk) 08:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Belgium and Denmark have deposited their instrument of ratification to the US government, but royal assents aren't signed! 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 77.222.19.43 ( talk) 08:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
7 STATES LEFT!
7 states must ratify the protocol. Great Britain will do it in the coming weeks, the USA in august. The Netherlands in November! Italy unknown, Iceland in autumn! France and Spain totally unknown, in Paris and Madrid the whole process did not even start so far! Sascha, Germany, Journalist
The table keeps being edited to say that the UK House of Commons "passed" the accession protocol on 16 October 2019, despite the fact that that is wholly false. The UK House of Commons does not ordinarily vote to "pass" treaties, [UK Ratification Details 1] and did not take any action of any kind relevant to the protocol, or to NATO or North Macedonia generally on that date. [UK Ratification Details 2] 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Lambsbridge ( talk 鈥 contribs) 23:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
By the House of Commons declining to take up the treaty when it was put to them, the treaty did pass through the House of Commons. Sladnick ( talk) 07:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I saw some back and forth editing earlier, but Spain did indeed deposit their signed treaty today, their embassy tweeted a photo and a video. I believe all that is left is for North Macedonia to deposit their ratification act that was passed in February in Brussels. Maybe that will happen tomorrow or Monday? Not exactly sure how that's going to work considering the HQ is shutdown for COVID-19 though. When it does happen, there probably will be ample news about it, which, heads up to editors here, will likely result in a bunch of new editing, probably some vandalism. Thanks!-- Patrick, o押鈭 21:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
"North Macedonia Joins the NATO Alliance" press release on US Department of State site ( https://www.state.gov/north-macedonia-joins-the-nato-alliance). So may it be considered a member state now and such changes should be made? Risto est ( talk) 16:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The map in the infobox uses the Mercator projection, which is known for distorting the sizes of landmasses. Can we replace it with the Robinson projection (or something similar to that) to avoid this? Glades12 ( talk) 11:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Seven US senators abstained from the vote. This is clearly stated in the source and I hope whoever is reverting my edit can tell me why it is being constantly set to zero. Tinyds ( talk) 00:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Seven senators were not present during the vote. In the US Senate senators may be vote in favour (Yea) or against (Nay). Abstention is not recognized in Senate. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 37.122.161.222 ( talk) 07:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Croatia鈥揘ATO relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. 鈥 RMCD bot 20:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
North Macedonia鈥揘ATO relations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | A news item involving North Macedonia鈥揘ATO relations was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 March 2020. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 27, 2024. |
The Centralized discussion set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. (Pages 2 and 4 deal with the conventions most directly affecting this article.)
Fut.Perf. 鈽 07:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Accession of Macedonia to NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
There are two pics. They are of graffiti in Ohrid. Recent removals are on reasons based on wp:idontlikeit (i.e: "This is anti-nato propaganda. And makes the article not neutral" [1]) more then anything else. There is a segment of the population that opposes NATO. That has fluctuated over the years. The data in the article on support numbers is from 2008. No editor has bothered to put more current numbers about support/opposition in the article and also how that is reflected among the two large communities of Macedonians and Albanians in the country. I don't see why pictures of the sort that has a view about NATO from the country reflected as graffiti should not be in the article. The pictures where taken in Ohrid and these pieces of text where in prominent locations. If people have pictures of pro-NATO sentiment, they are more then welcome to place pictures, etc. Resnjari ( talk) 16:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in [[User:Example|User:Nickname]] or [[User:Example|Nickname]]) can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make your signed comments appear to be from a different person. Alternatives include changing your username and including your account name in addition to the username, e.g. in the form [[User:Example|User:Example]]/Nickname.Resnjari ( talk) 14:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Does it strike nobody else as bizarre to have an image of some random anti-NATO scribble in a section that only talks about strong pro-NATO sentiment in the country from both officials and public opinion? Do we really need to give equal weight to the opinion of a single anonymous hoodlum? Just because the graffiti exists doesn't mean it bears including in an encyclopedia article. 199.247.42.202 ( talk) 13:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
On February 6, 2019, NATO representatives signed a protocol on the accession of Northern Macedonia to NATO. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 95.32.221.161 ( talk) 17:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Given that the country was renamed North Macedonia so that it could enter NATO, should this article be renamed Accession of North Macedonia to NATO? Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 22:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The big question is the name of the accession protocol. I have tried but didn't find it. L.tak ( talk) 19:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
It should be moved to Accession of Northern Macedonia to NATO; Wikipedia rules should not decide what the country is called. The country is now Northern Macedonia, which means that Wikipedia should follow suit and not make its own rules regarding country names. -- Kingerikthesecond ( talk) 17:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I notice that the article has move protection, and can be moved only by an admin. An hour or so ago an editor did a cut-and-paste move, which of course loses the attribution of the history. I've reverted the cut-and-paste and explained to the editor, but it obviously needs an eye keeping open for similar occurrences. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 04:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Greece signed it first but awaits approval from president. Then Slovenia followed and awaits approval as well Xylo kai Gyali ( talk) 15:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Accession of Macedonia to NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Albania also ratified it, [1] Also, since Greece & Slovenia also ratified it, shouldn't the date be also written on the "Negotiation Progress" part? 69.14.238.177 ( talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Accession of North Macedonia to NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The accession protocol was ratified by a couple of goverments and it isn't updated here, I would ask for an update Englans ( talk) 21:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Albania: https://sofiaglobe.com/2019/02/15/albanias-parliament-among-latest-to-ratify-north-macedonias-nato-accession-protocol/ Bulgaria: https://sofiaglobe.com/2019/02/20/bulgarian-parliament-ratifies-north-macedonias-nato-accession-protocol/ Slovenia: http://www.vlada.si/en/media_room/news_from_slovenia/news_from_slovenia/article/slovenia_ratifies_north_macedonias_nato_accession_protocol_62192/ Montenegro: https://twitter.com/MeGovernment/status/1096020256747864064
These are all official. Should be updated now. In which I will do. -- WeifengYang ( talk) 15:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Accession of North Macedonia to NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add date for Albania, Albania ratified it too. [1] [2] Wikicreator1234 ( talk) 00:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Instead of all the edit warring it would be easier if there were separate columns in the table for parliaments, heads of state and the dates of deposting of ratification instruments. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Extended Cut ( talk 鈥 contribs) 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE!!!!! Montenegro will ratify on Friday, March 1! Romania will ratify in March, Denmark and Hungary possibly in April. Croatia, Slovakia, Poland, Turkey and Iceland will also ratify in the coming weeks! The USA will ratify in autumn! 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 80.141.80.1 ( talk) 19:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
ATTENTION! Romania has not ratified so far! Only the commission discussed it! The final vote will be on april 5, according to the website of romanian parliament!
PDF format 2,1. Pl-x 50/2019 Proiectul de Lege pentru ratificarea Protocolului de aderare a Republicii Macedonia de Nord la Tratatul Atlanticului de Nord, semnat la Bruxelles, la 6 februarie 2019 (PL-x 50/2019) - lege ordinar膬 Raport- Comisia pentru politic膬 extern膬 (Adoptare) - distribuit - 26.02.2019 Procedur膬 de urgen牛膬 Prima Camer膬 sesizat膬 - Data prezent膬rii 卯n Biroul permanent 20.02.2019; data la care se 卯mpline艧te termenul constitu牛ional pentru dezbatere 艧i vot final 05.04.2019, potrivit art.75 alin.(2) din Constitu牛ie 艧i art.113 din Regulamentul Camerei Deputa牛ilor 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 80.141.80.1 ( talk) 21:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The United States House of Representatives has nothing to do with ratifying North Macedonia's NATO membership. -- Killuminator ( talk) 22:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The table on the website looks fine, but in the app (android version) a lot of the countries have two rows per country. For some reason a few of the countries have the second row shifted over a column. For instance I'm looking at Slovenia, the second row has 20 February 2019 directly below the country name, Presidential Assent is under the date column and so on. A number of counties without dates (but not all) have the same issue. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 74.254.77.254 ( talk) 13:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE! ROMANIA (SENATE) WILL RATIFY THE PROTOCOL NEXT WEEK! I HAVE NO INFORMATION FROM THE REMAINING 22 STATES SO FAR! 鈥斅燩receding
unsigned comment added by
80.141.84.170 (
talk)
19:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The parliaments of Denmark, Belgium and Slovakia approved the accession. Although the frame of Slovakia is covered by green colour, those of Denmark and Belgium are white. Is there a reason? Ooyamanobutatu ( talk) 12:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I would like to know the reason. Ooyamanobutatu ( talk) 12:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Please do not color country names! 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 109.228.109.137 ( talk 鈥 contribs)
An IP tries to add the Portuguese assembly vote already for some time, and is reverted by another IP. The given ref is this vote (maybe a better overview of the status is at this link, and the reason for reversion seems "Portugal has not ratified yet"). Both can of course be true (and at the same time). Can someone who reads portuguese better than I am and understands the parliamentary process there indicate if this is the final vote of parliament on this matter and what would be the next step? It seems a vote was held in plenary, and that the next step is some kind of signature. Could that be the signature of the president? L.tak ( talk) 20:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The Norwegian parliament approved the accession protocol, but we were recording it as if there had been 72 abstentions. In fact, there were not 72 abstentions, but 72 persons who were not present at the vote (Ikke til stede), as can be seen here (the link is 1 click away from the link given in the article).... Therefore the 72 should be changed to "0" in the abstentions column. An IP has reverted that change (which had this info in the edit summary) without any explanation, so I am restating it... L.tak ( talk) 18:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Canada has ratified accession protocol earlier today. In this table there are columns for House of Commons and Senate. I don't know where to add ratification details. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 95.155.11.46 ( talk) 18:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Why nordic and some other countries have local names of parliaments in the table but Baltic countries don't? -- 90.143.22.135 ( talk) 08:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Belgium and Denmark have deposited their instrument of ratification to the US government, but royal assents aren't signed! 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 77.222.19.43 ( talk) 08:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
7 STATES LEFT!
7 states must ratify the protocol. Great Britain will do it in the coming weeks, the USA in august. The Netherlands in November! Italy unknown, Iceland in autumn! France and Spain totally unknown, in Paris and Madrid the whole process did not even start so far! Sascha, Germany, Journalist
The table keeps being edited to say that the UK House of Commons "passed" the accession protocol on 16 October 2019, despite the fact that that is wholly false. The UK House of Commons does not ordinarily vote to "pass" treaties, [UK Ratification Details 1] and did not take any action of any kind relevant to the protocol, or to NATO or North Macedonia generally on that date. [UK Ratification Details 2] 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Lambsbridge ( talk 鈥 contribs) 23:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
By the House of Commons declining to take up the treaty when it was put to them, the treaty did pass through the House of Commons. Sladnick ( talk) 07:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I saw some back and forth editing earlier, but Spain did indeed deposit their signed treaty today, their embassy tweeted a photo and a video. I believe all that is left is for North Macedonia to deposit their ratification act that was passed in February in Brussels. Maybe that will happen tomorrow or Monday? Not exactly sure how that's going to work considering the HQ is shutdown for COVID-19 though. When it does happen, there probably will be ample news about it, which, heads up to editors here, will likely result in a bunch of new editing, probably some vandalism. Thanks!-- Patrick, o押鈭 21:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
"North Macedonia Joins the NATO Alliance" press release on US Department of State site ( https://www.state.gov/north-macedonia-joins-the-nato-alliance). So may it be considered a member state now and such changes should be made? Risto est ( talk) 16:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The map in the infobox uses the Mercator projection, which is known for distorting the sizes of landmasses. Can we replace it with the Robinson projection (or something similar to that) to avoid this? Glades12 ( talk) 11:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Seven US senators abstained from the vote. This is clearly stated in the source and I hope whoever is reverting my edit can tell me why it is being constantly set to zero. Tinyds ( talk) 00:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Seven senators were not present during the vote. In the US Senate senators may be vote in favour (Yea) or against (Nay). Abstention is not recognized in Senate. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 37.122.161.222 ( talk) 07:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Croatia鈥揘ATO relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. 鈥 RMCD bot 20:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)