Please leave the crap above. If you want to just call someone names (in either direction), please use the space above. The label on the map needs to change to ROM from the current FYROM. This section is not about using "Macedonia" or any textual references. It is only about editing the map from FYROM to ROM.

• The disambiguation of Macedonia (Greece) and Republic of Macedonia has already been very well accomplished by the notice in the very first paragraph of the article of "the former Republic of Macedonia" and by numerous references in succeeding paragraphs to the Greek provinces.
• Introducing "FYROM" into a map where that phrase ("Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as a proper name) has not been used anywhere else in the article is a violation of the principles of basic technical and scientific writing. "Republic of Macedonia", however, has been used before exactly in the context that it would be used in the map--in a list of Greece's neighbors.
• The argument that "Republic of Macedonia" would confuse readers is not a good argument since we have the Belgian province of Luxembourg neighboring Luxembourg, two Congos neighboring one another, and two Chinas neighboring one another. These are not confusing on the maps. Sure, some fifth graders are confused, but we don't write or edit Wikipedia to a fifth-grade level. We must assume that our readers are intelligent enough to distinguish between a Greek province and an independent country. This will also not be confusing because a previous map in the article carefully labels the provinces as West Macedonia, Central Macedonia, and East Macedonia. These are clearly Greek provinces. Indeed, someone just glancing at the map might not even realize that the "M" of "ROM" means "Macedonia", so the readers who might in the least be confused won't even see the word "Macedonia" to cause any confusion.
• There are literally hundreds of examples across the world where the potential "confusion" that the Greek editors are so concerned about occurs. In none of these other cases do we go to such great lengths to disambiguate. On maps of the U.S. we do not write "Washington (the state)" on a map of the Pacific Northwest. On maps of Pennsylvania we do not write "Wyoming (the county)". Etc. This is a map we're talking about. The clarification and disambiguation comes from looking at the map. Seeing that "ROM" is an entity outside the borders of Greece is the very act of disambiguation that it is not a part of Greece.

Once again, let's not get this section muddied by garbage talk. Stick to the issues, please. ( Taivo ( talk) 17:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

So now I feel a little stupid because I notice that someone edited the map since the last time I saw it. It says (right now, at least) "Rep. Maced.", which is perfectly acceptable to me. Of course, it might be reverted to FYROM, which is not acceptable to me. "Rep. Maced." is not ambiguous at all, since the label "Macedonia" is clearly reserved for and used of the Greek provinces. ( Taivo ( talk) 17:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

There is no problem with using FYROM if we have introduced the acronym in the lead, per WP:MOSABBR: The full name should always be the first reference in an article, and thereafter acronyms are acceptable, as long as the acronym is given as an explicit alternative early (usually in parentheses). It should be noted that the acronym is at least as well-established as the full reference; it isn't a "Greek" epithet. As for "ROM", I wonder if the other side wouldn't object to the inevitable Romani connotations. Isn't that why the Roumanians changed their 3-letter country code from ROM to ROU? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, your reading of the policy for acronyms is a good one, but it is not applicable in this case. "FYROM" is not established in the article as an acronym. The phrase "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is used, but "FYROM" is not labelled as an acronym derived from it. I would oppose such an acronym since the Wikipedia article that it refers to is simply Republic of Macedonia. One of the following comments actually is quite appropriate--the map should be a standalone image without inherent reliance on the article through acronyms, etc. ( Taivo ( talk) 21:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

I also agree with you concerning the problem with "ROM" and Romania. I hadn't thought about that. But the suggestion of "Rep. Maced." eliminates both of these problems. It clearly differentiates between "Macedonia", which is a region of Greece and the independent Republic of Macedonia. There isn't any ambiguity or confusion. ( Taivo ( talk) 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

See WP:MOSMAC#Images which clearly say that RoM or FYROM should not be used unless there's not space, if there's no space the convention used in the article should be used, so it depends on the results of the discussion above. man with one red shoe 18:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Fully spelled-out "Republic of Macedonia" is a bit too large for the map; my suggestion therefore was an ad-hoc abbreviation like "Rep. Maced." or something like that. Map inscriptions can be freely abbreviated in whatever way we like, there's no naming convention for them; "Rep. Maced." has the the advantage that it's transparent, unlike "FYROM" (or "RoM", of course), which to the non-expert reader is utterly opaque. Deliberately introducing an opaque reader-unfriendly abbreviation there, and then using that as a pretext for pushing in the same abbreviation also elsewhere in the text as Kekrops now suggests, is doubly reader-unfriendly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I like that solution as well. Rep. and Maced. are clearly recognizable to most English speakers. FYROM and ROM are, as you say, opaque and not well suited for a standalone article such as a map. ( Taivo ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

Now this is getting interesting. Opaque? Really? What is the most common abbreviation for the country in English? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

There is no "most common" abbreviation in English because this is a fairly new country. We've not had to make a habit of abbreviating Macedonia before. But "Rep." as an abbreviation for "Republic" is quite common. "Maced." has the advantage of containing enough of the word that a reasonable person will recognize it, but eliminates a bit less than half of the length. ( Taivo ( talk) 21:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

So why is it so ubiquitous among those who use the UN reference, including the UN itself, the EU, the OSCE, the EBU, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO and NATO? In fact, the acronym is so notable that it rates a mention in the lead of the country article. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

"FYROM" is not an abbreviation and it is not in standard use in English. You mistake official UN documents, etc. for standard usage in English, which would be on maps in a child's textbook, on a list of countries of the world in an atlas, etc. Once again, we reiterate that Wikipedia is not an arm of the UN. ( Taivo ( talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

Who says the acronym is not in standard use in English? Even among those who call it "Macedonia", there is quite a long tradition of associating the name with the acronym for disambiguation purposes. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It's standard practice (and common sense) to make names intelligible on maps. Bear in mind that the map is a stand-alone entity; it's not part of the article text, so it has to work on its own. -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

(removed personal attacks with no constructive content) I asked you to keep the crap comments out of this section. There are plenty of other places on this page where you can make personal attacks, etc. ( Taivo ( talk) 21:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

I guess I'm just not keeping up with the changes that are actually occurring on the map itself. Right now it says "Rep. Macedonia". That's OK with me. I don't really mind one way or the other with "Maced." or "Macedonia", but I would oppose the removal of "Rep.", however. The "Rep." is an important disambiguating reference so that there is no confusion between this independent entity and the region of Greece called "Macedonia". ( Taivo ( talk) 21:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

I just want to reiterate that the English Wikipedia is not based on U.N. norms or practices, but upon its own norms and practices that are fundamentally English. If we were based on the U.N. then there would be no articles on Abkhazia, Palestine, the Republic of China, etc. and no mention of them either because, according to the U.N., they don't exist. The "confusion" argument on the map also is not legitimate since readers are quite content to have two Congos and two Chinas on one map. They are not confused. Those seem to be the only two arguments that the pro-FYROM editors are making--UN norms and potential confusion with two "Macedonias". Am I missing another pro-FYROM argument? ( Taivo ( talk) 10:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

FYROM is not a "name". It's a description, or as the diplomats put it, "a provisional reference", meaning literally "the Republic of Macedonia that was formerly part of Yugoslavia". That's why "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is never capitalised unless at the beginning of a sentence. See the second bullet point of Macedonia naming dispute#Compromise solutions for an explanation. Wikipedia is not an agency of the UN or the EU and is not subject to the decisions of such organisations, as Taivo rightly points out.As far as we are concerned, the country describes itself as the "Republic of Macedonia", and Wikipedia's policy and standards mandate that we call political entities by the names they call themselves (unless there is a more common English equivalent). That's why we use "Republic of Macedonia". -- ChrisO ( talk) 11:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You manage to even distort what FYROM means, it means literally "a Republic of Yugoslavia that was named Macedonia".-- Avg ( talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

No, the normal meaning in English is either "The Republic of Macedonia that was formerly part of Yugoslavia" or "Macedonia that was formerly a Yugoslav republic". There is no implication that it was "formerly named Macedonia". ( Taivo ( talk) 21:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

Let me make it clearer: It is former (Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). Anything after former is simply that, former. The word former is a qualifier to the whole sentence, not to "Yugoslav" only.-- Avg ( talk) 21:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

That point strikes me as being something of a side issue, to be honest. "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" isn't a name; it's a description or reference. WP:NC directs us to use the most common unambiguous name. That immediately rules out "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", as that isn't used by anyone - Greece, the RoM, the UN and the EU included - as the name of the country. -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, ChrisO, it is a side issue and not really relevant to the issues at hand--that Wikipedia is not subject to the whims of either the U.N. or the E.U. and that "Republic of Macedonia" next to "Macedonia (Greece)" is no more confusing that two Congos next to each other, two Chinas next to each other, two Irelands next to each other, or even to the United States of America being only a part of two entire continents named "America". ( Taivo ( talk) 03:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

"Rep. Macedonia" is a very acceptable solution, and it won't be confused with the Macedonia province. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment:I believe that the invoked policy of consistent use of ‘Republic of Macedonia’ throughout English Wikipedia is ill-founded, fueling confrontation among editors that is totally unnecessary.

I would have left the principle of consistency involving the two relevant name forms to be enforced on an article-by-article basis, as a temporary arrangement to be replaced in due course by a permanent one reflecting the solution that is to happen outside Wikipedia.

I don’t believe Wikipedia should take sides in this contentious and sensitive issue of name usage, more so that a solution of the issue itself is pending – unavoidably, as even the closest partners of the Republic of Macedonia now unequivocally insist that Skopje accepts a compromise the basics of which have already come up, with neither ‘Republic of etc.’ nor ‘Former Yugoslav etc.’ being that compromise.

P.S. Should anyone here happen to have in mind, besides the belief in following some established Wikipedia policy of giving preference to one of the names, also the motivation that this way he/she is ‘supporting Macedonia and the Macedonians’, I am afraid that such ‘support’ is actually not in the best interests of that country and its people, but rather gives courage to the policies of the present government in Skopje that are increasingly questioned both at home and abroad, policies that have been leading the country into isolation, economic and social underdevelopment (the achievement of being outpaced by Albania ... for starters) and ethnic divergence with far reaching implications.

Needless to say, such ‘good wishers’ come and go, and it’s never them who pay the price. Apcbg ( talk) 09:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

This has nothing to do with "promoting Macedonia". It's about consistency within Wikipedia outside of politics. Indeed, Wikipedia's standards for naming a place specifically prohibit political considerations. Indeed, even the phrase "Republic of" is a compromise for Greek sensibilities and disambiguation with the Greek province since we just say "France" and not "Republic of France", etc. ( Taivo ( talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

I wrote "Should anyone here happen to have in mind" so let everyone decide what's on one's mind, and one can hardly speak for the others. Apcbg ( talk) 15:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The solution is, I think, simple. Since the map has the purpose to show Greece's regions and major islands, cities, etc, just remove the names of neighbouring states. Kapnisma ( talk) 12:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It is indeed indisputable that the map is a "stand alone entity", as the supporters say. It is also, however, indisputable that if this other stand-alone entity had a title, that title would be "Greece" and nothing else. If we were talking about the Balkans, or about Southeastern Europe, things change. But when we're talking about a map of Greece, I do not understand why the above #Opposition rationale (for the country's article) does not apply here too (in the country's map). Moreover, if there were names in the respective EU articles' maps, (such as e.g. in this one), I'm sure they would be in accordance to this article. Niko Silver 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Once again, I reiterate that Wikipedia is not an arm of the EU and need not follow EU policies. ( Taivo ( talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

This section is not a straw poll. It is a place for discussion by interested parties and discussion only. I'm not counting any "votes". If you have a constructive comment, then please post it. I've deleted all the "votes" that contain no discussion. So far the pro-FYROM issues are entirely based on 1) following UN and EU usage slavishly and 2) disambiguating the name from the Greek provinces. However, the disambiguation issue seems to have been resolved by citing the numerous examples in Wikipedia where disambiguation is accomplished through other means (Congos, Chinas, Irelands, USA, etc.). It seems that the most recent comments here still hinge on official UN and EU usage, although there is a nascent issue that occasionally surfaces concerning Greek sensibility. I won't comment on the relevance of personal feelings to Wikipedia. ( Taivo ( talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

I would appreciate it if my postings were not edited without my consent — and never mind possible justification or explanation. Apcbg ( talk) 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

There is nothing "slavish" about following proper terminology used in large international bodies. Using the term "slavishly" to refer to recognised terminology used by premier international bodies is in itself POV. Dr.K. logos 15:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It may be "POV", but that is the official Wikipedia POV. Wikipedia is specifically not bound by the terminology of international bodies. If Wikipedia were bound by UN or EU policies, then we would have to eliminate all references to Abkhazia, Transnistria, and even Republic of China since these do not exist as far as the UN is concerned. International bodies are not neutral parties themselves, but represent the aggregate POV of their members. The use of the word "slavishly" is my personal interpretation of that policy, of course, but I do believe that it accurately reflects the Wikipedia POV that Wikipedia is independent of the control of the international bodies. It expressly uses the constitutional name of a country in preference to some usage required for compatability with international organizations. However, even more important than constitutional usage, common English usage prevails in all naming conventions in Wikipedia above and beyond international compromises or treaty. The common English usage for "Republic of Macedonia" is just "Macedonia" (and definitely not "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). Because of the ambiguity of using "Macedonia", however, we revert to the constitutional preference and use "Republic of Macedonia" to distinguish it from the Greek provinces, just as we use "Republic of Congo" and "Democratic Republic of Congo" to distinguish the two Congos and "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" to distinguish the two Chinas. Using "Republic of Macedonia" and "Macedonia (Greece)" is effective enough to distinguish the two Macedonias. ( Taivo ( talk) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

Atlases are a very reliable source for common English usage for placenames.

• Hammond Centennial World Atlas (1999): "World Flags and Reference Guide", pg 19: "Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.)"; (Macedonia is not labelled on the World Political Map); "Europe", pg 27: "Macedonia"; "Southern Italy, Albania, Greece", pg 47, and "Hungary, Northern Balkan States", pg 49: "Macedonia" (with a footnote to The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.))
• Rand McNally Portrait World Atlas (1998)-No references anywhere to "former Yugoslav Republic": "World, Political", pg 3: "Mace"; "Europe, Political", pg. 7: "Macedonia"; "Southern Italy", pg 25, "Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Bulgaria", pg 27, and "Greece and Western Italy", pg 28: "Macedonia"
• Atlas of the World's Languages (1994): "The Slavic-Speaking Balkans", Map 64: "Macedonia"
• Europe and Macedonia: "Macedonia"
• Encarta: "F.Y.R.O.M."
• Europe and Macedonia: "Macedonia" on map. The Macedonia map lists the "long form" of the name as "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
• Europe and Macedonia: "Macedonia"
• Central Mediterranean: "Macedonia"

I could keep going on with on-line atlases, but that should be sufficient to demonstrate that overwhelmingly the common English usage for Macedonia is "Macedonia". Common English usage for naming in Wikipedia is the ne plus ultra. ( Taivo ( talk) 15:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

But we're not discussing "Macedonia". We're discussing FYROM versus "RoM". · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, the discussion has moved on from that initial version to FYROM versus what is on the map now (or a variant thereof): "Rep. Maced.", "Rep. Mace.", or "Rep. Macedonia" ( Taivo ( talk) 16:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

That's even less frequent. I do not understand why we have to improvise names for the sole purpose of wiping out the evil acronym FYROM from the face of the earth at all costs! If it is because it hits certain nationalist nerves from the other side, then this is not a decent excuse. Niko Silver 16:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It's not about frequency, it's about understandability. "FYROM" alone gives an unitiated reader no chance of guessing what it means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Which is why for years we introduced the acronym in the lead, per WP:MOSABBR. Until someone came along and fucked it all up. Besides, mousing over the link makes it sufficiently clear, one would imagine. Unless of course your readers have finally become as thick as Niko's, which you're always complaining about. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

No benefit in introducing an obscure abbreviation if you are then only going to use it once, three miles further down in the text, and if you can just as well avoid it altogether. Unless, of course, you want to stick it in for your cheap ideological gratificaiton. And no, we should not rely on linking to explain things for us, for reasons of simple reader-friendliness and accessibility. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It's not obscure, it's simply non-kosher for some. Big difference. It is abundantly clear which is the most established abbreviation in English. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I never come across that acronym in real life, outside Wikipedia (and outside Greece, of course). I still maintain it is likely to be completely unknown to the majority of our readers. To measure its familiarity in the real world, I suggest counting how often it comes up on its own, without an explanation, in natural text (not officialese Websites, but places where people just write naturally, such as journalistic use, books or quality blogs, as a writer's first and natural choice for referring to the country. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Let's do that, shall we? Because I seriously doubt it would be "Republic of Macedonia" or any ugly abbreviation thereof. In my experience as a reader, FYROM (the acronym, not the full reference) is by far the most common "first and natural choice" after "Macedonia". · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The reason this is going in circles is evidently because you don't want to get the point, so I'll stop here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

If you object to "original" use of Republic of Macedonia to distinguish it from Greece, then we can go with what is common and nearly universal English usage, which is "Macedonia". "FYROM" as a label for this country is almost never used on English maps. Just as we disambiguate the two Congos with "Republic of Congo" and "Democratic Republic of Congo" we disambiguate the two Macedonias by "Republic of Macedonia" and "Macedonia (Greece)". "FYROM" is almost never used on English maps to disambiguate. And in Wikipedia, English usage rules. ( Taivo ( talk) 16:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

Never used? I see at least 3 instances of F.Y.R.O.M. in your examples above. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You were talking about the most common English name, which is quite a separate matter from the map. Other publications do not abbreviate because they are not edited to our high standards of precision. Atlases ... may well use "Macedonia", but we don't. Interesting though that the only abbreviation or acronym used in the examples you have cited is F.Y.R.O.M. Are you convinced now? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, you didn't read the examples carefully or else you would have seen "Mace." And there is only one example of F.Y.R.O.M. as a "abbreviation". In the other cases where it is found, it is a parenthetical comment or footnote, not an abbreviation to replace "Macedonia". Actually, "common English name" in this section is entirely related to the map as I specifically stated in the opening sentence. And the most common English name for your northern neighbor on English maps is "Macedonia". If "FYROM" occurs at all it is a footnote and not on the map itself, except in only one instance. And our maps do follow atlas usage quite often if not a majority of the time. Atlases are the most reliable source of information on English placenames. (I deleted your off-topic insult.) ( Taivo ( talk) 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

How many times must I reiterate that we're not debating "Macedonia" versus FYROM? Your point regarding the ubiquity of "Macedonia" has been made countless times before, but is irrelevant to the discussion. We don't use it on Wikipedia because it's ambiguous, full stop. In the case of the map, having two instances of "Macedonia", one immediately above the other, would be even more confusing. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

That's why we disambiguate with "Rep. Mace(d(onia))" rather than simply "Macedonia", just we as disambiguate the two Congos on one map by "Republic of Congo" and "Democratic Republic of Congo"; the two Chinas on one map by "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China"; etc. ( Taivo ( talk) 18:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

Great, my preference would be FYR Mace(d.(onia)). Anything wrong with that?-- Avg ( talk) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Better than "FYROM", but what is the uninitiated reader going to do with the "FY"? It's still opaque, unless you are either a Greek or a Balkan expert. What advantage does it have, to the uninvolved reader (other than gratifying your POV-flagging urge, that is?) How can two random letters help in disambiguating things, if the normal reader has no way of guesing what they stand for? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Well it seems there are too many millions of uninitiated readers who do get "FYR" [1], [2], [3].-- Avg ( talk) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, I'm sure web page authors sometimes copy "FYR" from somewhere. But do their readers know what it stands for? Test a few. You're lucky that none of those pages actually involves the task you pretend to be so concerned about: disambiguating between that Macedonia and the other. Because if they had to do that, they'd soon see that "FYR" does absolutely nothing to help with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

LOL... You're busted. The middle link clearly mentions "The Former Yugoslav Republic of "Macedonia" is only one of three areas of the historical region of "Macedonia", which includes Pirin Macedonia (Bulgaria) and Aegean Macedonia (Greece)."-- Avg ( talk) 18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Sigh. Another red herring. The question is not what those websites say. The question is whether an average reader would understand "FYR" on first seeing it, without further explanation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I thought "Macedonia" had such an overwhelming non-Greek connotation in English that it required no further explanation. This is becoming farcical now. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Indeed, it doesn't. I'm not saying "Macedonia", with or without extra letters, wouldn't be understood. But "FY" does nothing to help with that. It could just as well stand for "Free Yunanistan", for all our readers know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

(unindenting)Who cares? Our only concern is to disambiguate your "Macedonia" from the Macedonia a few millimetres down the screen, not whether it's a republic or "still" a monarchy. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Indeed. And then, what's your problem with choosing a disambiguator that has some chance of actually making sense to people? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Who says it doesn't? "FYR Macedonia" is beamed into billions more homes than "Rep. Maced." is. Wikipedia is the only place your average bloke would ever stumble across the awkward "Republic". Why not give them something they're already familiar with? "Oh yeah, that's the country that did so well at the Olympics/World Cup/Euro/Eurovision". · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Billions? Get real. "Republic of Macedonia" is a far more common name for the country than FYROM. The vast majority of Americans have no idea what "FY" means. They do know what "Macedonia" means. News reports here always say simply "Macedonia", not "Former......." ( Taivo ( talk) 19:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

[I]f news reports [in the US] always use "Macedonia" as you say, what part of "FYR Macedonia" would people not understand? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I removed an irrelevant insult from the preceding post. ( Taivo ( talk) 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

The "FYR" bit, surely, since that's a deeply obscure acronym for anyone not versed in the diplomatic niceties of the Macedonia situation. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

That it is obscure is simply your opinion, not fact. But it doesn't matter; people will still know it means the country, not the Greek region to the south, and that's all that matters for our purposes. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The "Rep." for "Republic" disambiguates perfectly well and continues the Wikipedia policy of using constitutional names if common names need to be disambiguated. ( Taivo ( talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

Since the current version--"Rep. Maced." was put there as a compromise form by one of the supporters of the "Greek" position, and since none of the opponents of the "Greek" position seems to object to it, this discussion can probably be considered closed. ( Taivo ( talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

Can it? Avg and I have yet to receive a serious answer as to why we shouldn't use "FYR Macedonia". · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Obviously, because "Rep." is easier to understand for the uninitiated, at least as effective for disambiguation for those who need it, and compatible with the self-identification criterion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, you have received serious answers many times. I will summarize:

• Wikipedia policy for naming things has a simple hierarchy--a) What is the common English name? b) If there is no common English name, what is the constitutional name?

• The common English name for Greece's northern neighbor is "Macedonia". I have demonstrated that through the vast majority of atlas references, all but one of which use "Macedonia" as the common English name.
• The constitutional name for Greece's northern neighbor is "Republic of Macedonia".

• Since there is potential ambiguity between using "Macedonia" for the republic and "Macedonia" for the Greek region, the common English name can be replaced by the constitutional name and then abbreviated for space considerations.

• Tasoskessaris used the abbreviation "Rep. Maced." which is an acceptable English abbreviation.
• I have shown that "Mace." is also used to abbreviate the full name on at least one atlas, so that is another potential option--"Rep. Mace."
• There is Wikipedia precedent for using "Rep. Mace(d(onia))" as a disambiguating option on the map since it is the option chosen to disambiguate the two Chinas and the two Congos--using the constitutional name rather than the common name.

• Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits political considerations from coming into play on determining English names for things. "FY" in any form only exists for political reasons originating in Greece and not in Macedonia. It is therefore not an option for Wikipedia since it a) is not the common English name, b) is not the constitutional name, and c) only exists for external political reasons.
• Only one English atlas surveyed uses FYROM to label the Republic of Macedonia on an actual map. The vast majority of atlases label it "Macedonia" or "Mace." on the maps. Only two of the atlases surveyed even mention "the former Yugoslav..." in a footnote (not on the map and not in the acronym "FY").

Thus, there is ample evidence from Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia practice, and common English usage that "Rep. Mace(d(onia))" is the best alternative for disambiguating the two Macedonias on the map. ( Taivo ( talk) 11:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

And yet, none of the above seems to be an issue in the numerous Wikipedia articles that abbreviate to "FYR Macedonia". · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, probably they shouldn't either. But I am not interested in football articles. And I wouldn't touch song contest articles with a ten-foot pole. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

There should be consistency throughout Wikipedia, but this is not a perfect world. But we see a place right here before us where we can apply Wikipedia policy properly. Just because another article doesn't right now doesn't mean that we shouldn't apply it here right now. ( Taivo ( talk) 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

• Clarification: Although I appreciate the attribution, a quick glance at my edit summary reveals that I made the edit pending discussion outcome. So in no way I wanted to prejudice any eventual agreement. I did this mostly to prevent edit warring. So my edit was not to condone this particular form as the final product of this discussion. However given all the peripheral drama that has occured one wonders what purpose this discussion serves when the flak flying all over the place makes this forum look like a war zone not like the forum of academic discussion it ought to be. Dr.K. logos 12:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I voted in the straw poll in favour of Husdons proposal, because I think that there should be only one guide on wiki. But, seeing whats happening here, I wander why those users, who favour RoM instead of FYROM had speedy-closed as POINT this discussion: Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/name#Page_move_proposal. Somebody could argue that the straw poll in here could also be POINTy, as its exactly after the renaming proposal. I would propose a general discussion on FYROM-RoM, not only in this page, but in Republic of Macedonia, as it seems that the main argument why RoM is still the wiki-used name is "just per a consensus reached some wiki-millenea ago". After such a discussion is closed, than we may say that Mac, RoM or FYROM should be used in all pages. Balkanian`s word ( talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Support. Dear Balkanian’s word, I see the point of your proposal to have a general discussion on FYROM-RoM, and would be willing to participate ... although the debate here has demonstrated quite a bit of poor understanding of the issue so far. Perhaps we could do with some external topical analysis too; I would suggest say (1) and (2), hopefully other participants could provide further relevant sources. Best, Apcbg ( talk) 22:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

There is no "issue" to understand. It is very simple Wikipedia policy and principle: a) Give a place its common English name or, if that leads to ambiguity (as it does with "Congo", "China", and "Macedonia"), b) give a place its self-designation without regard to politics or emotions. ( Taivo ( talk) 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)) reply

Maybe so, yet apparently the participants in the present straw poll and discussion have deemed it relevant to debate that no-"issue" extensively (maybe even predominantly), including your own comments of 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC), 18:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC), 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC), 03:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC), 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC), 03:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC), 22:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC) to mention but a few. Apcbg ( talk) 09:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

So? I get excited by a good debate just like many others here (including yourself). But, in the end, as much fun as the debating is, it still comes down to Wikipedia policy as I stated above and has been stated many times here. ( Taivo ( talk) 10:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)) reply

By all means, have fun. I'll stick to my support for Balkanian’s word’s proposal. Apcbg ( talk) 10:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

And until the "Grand Wikipedia Macedonian Conference" is finished, we have existing Wikipedia policy which is a) common English usage followed by b) self-identifier ("Macedonia" followed by "Republic of Macedonia"). ( Taivo ( talk) 13:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)) reply

No need to follow this Policy Taivo instead of just following the far more important policy of WP:NPOV - Remain Neutral. There is an international dispute over this country's name and FYROM is used by many organizations worldwide, why should wikipedia abandon it's usage since it is extensively used to describe the State of Skopje? Especially in articles directly related to countries that use the FYROM name to refer to it.-- Sadbuttrue92 ( talk) 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Please note that Wikipedia policies are debated in other discussion threads here, this particular thread is about Balkanian’s word’s proposal. Apcbg ( talk) 16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I must say I find this particularly amusing. How appropriate for them, given their love for capsicum. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Touché. Okay, I promise with my next edit-warring I'll put a "d" back in. ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

No no, leave it. The "Republic of Mace" may even prove to be the elusive golden ratio that will produce the "unique positive solution" in the real world as well. Αργήσαμε αλλά τα καταφέραμε. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Golden ratio? Hey, dammit, that's it! "Macedonia" has 9 letters. "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" has 37. The golden ratio is roughly 1.6. Now, 9 × 1.6 × 1.6 × 1.6 = 37! Which means we need to find expressions at the intermediate steps: they must have either c.14.5 letters, or 23. "Republic of 'Macedonia'" has 23 letters. The solution! Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I ended up with different numbers: 9, 33 and 19. :( · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I put in "Mace." exactly because it has appeared in several atlases and maps that I've examined as an abbreviation for Macedonia. I've never seen "Maced." as an abbreviation, but "Mace." has been used by itself. I'm not married to "Mace.", however, and if everyone would prefer "Maced." then I have no objections. ( Taivo ( talk) 14:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)) reply

I propose a map not showing the rest of greece's neighbours. Clearly, any solution regarding names will violate policy "give a place its self-designation without regard to politics or emotions" because of how pro-RoM or pro-FYROM people feel. This is a political issue and until it's resolved both "macedonians" will have an equal claim on the policy stated above. In any case, locking an article for so long is ridiculous, anti-productive and has an effect on wikipedia's credibility as important information cannot be added. Wormhole spacetime ( talk) 00:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply