This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The name is mistaken it should be Republic of Macedonia. We expect shortly this error to be corrected thank you and best regards. Mkdsime ( talk) 18:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
This sentence has some unnecessary repetitiveness to it:
"After the ceremony, Tsipras, along with his North Macedonian counterpart, crossed over the border to the North Macedonian side of Lake Prespa for lunch at the village of Oteševo, in a highly symbolic move that marked the first time a Greek Prime Minister had entered the country since it declared independence in 1991."
Can we simplify it like this:
"After the ceremony, Tsipras and Zaev crossed over the border to the other side of Lake Prespa for lunch at the village of Oteševo, in a highly symbolic move that marked the first time a Greek Prime Minister had entered the country since it declared independence in 1991."
The context of who Tsipras and Zaev are is established earlier in the text. GStojanov ( talk) 18:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change IPA-bg to IPA-mk. GStojanov ( talk) 12:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov ( talk) 12:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "The fauna of North Macedonian forests" with "The fauna of the forests". Rationale: The context is already well established, the name of the country is mentioned 10 times already. GStojanov ( talk) 13:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov ( talk) 13:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I suggest dropping the mention that there is a Bulgarian minority in the opening few paragraphs as there is no modern evidence to indicate a significant Bulgarian minority. Official censuses in the Republic of Macedonia and Yugoslavia are contrary to the statement. -- Anti political shills ( talk) 00:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "According to Eurostat data, North Macedonian PPS GDP per capita" to "According to Eurostat data the PPS GDP per capita" Rationale: The context is already established. This paragraph alone mentions North Macedonia five times. It is way too repetitive. GStojanov ( talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov ( talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering when the RfC will be ready. I think it closed 3 weeks ago.-- Europarliament ( talk) 19:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change: "The North Macedonian education system consists of" with "The education system of North Macedonia consists of" GStojanov ( talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov ( talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with using the adjectival term "North Macedonian" here. We would talk about the "North Macedonian educational system" the same way we'd talk about say, the "South African educational system". As for cumbersome, I'd argue it is more so than using the adjectival since it adds an extra word "of" into the sentence. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 18:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "village of Oteševo on the North Macedonian side" to "village of Oteševo on the Macedonian side". Rationale: At the time of the event the name of the country was: Macedonia, so according to WP:NCMAC.3.2: "In historical contexts referring to events between 1992 and 2019, Wikipedia articles will continue to refer to the country by its then-current official name" we should use either the then current name or then current adjective. GStojanov ( talk) 12:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov ( talk) 12:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
In this sentence we have an adjectival reference that is questionable. We refer to the past using a current adjectival reference:
"The territory of the modern North Macedonian state was annexed by Serbia and named South Serbia."
I suggest we reformat is like this:
"The territory of the modern Macedonian state was annexed by Serbia and named South Serbia."
or like this:
"The territory of the modern state of North Macedonia was annexed by Serbia and named South Serbia."
I prefer the first choice, but the second is acceptable too. GStojanov ( talk) 16:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last sentence of the Medieval and Ottoman period section is problematic. "and the territory of Macedonia subsequently became part of the province of Manastir Vilayet until the end of Ottoman rule in 1912." This is simply not true. Only Western Macedonia was part of the Manastir Vilayet. The rest of Macedonia was under other vilayets. I think if we change only the word "the" to "that" it will make perfect sense: "and that territory of Macedonia....", since the author is only referring to "north-western North Macedonia" in this paragraph. -- Jorisvda ( talk) 19:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I am talking about this sentence:
Prior to February 2019, in Macedonian the country name was Македонија, officially Република Македонија; in Albanian Maqedonia, officially Republika e Maqedonisë; in Turkish Makedonya, officially Makedonya Cumhuriyeti; in Romani Makedoniya, officially Republika Makedoniya; in Serbian and Bosnian Makedonija, officially Republika Makedonija; in Aromanian Machedonia, officially Republica Machedonia.
It is clear that the sentence is a nod to the minority languages spoken in North Macedonia, namely Turkish, Romani, Serbian and Bosnian, and Aromanian. It is also very clear that the sentence is a reworked remnant from the time the country hadn't changed its name yet. Right now, there are only two logical ways this can go:
a) include the current name of the country in all these languages in the info bar in order to keep this sentence, or b) scrap the utterly pointless sentence altogether. The article already establishes in its second sentence what the country's previous name was in English.
Option (a) is logical, it is also however ludicrous. No English-speaker is interested in either the current or the former Turkish, Romani or Aromanian name of the country. Even more so, similar articles about other countries which changed their official name, be it because the country's polity or the country's everyday name changed, do not recite every previous name of the country, or predecessor of that country, in that country's language(s).
Suggestion: scrap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:712D:8F00:E04A:F0E0:8E7A:9FD4 ( talk) 21:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree. It makes the article unnecessarily long as well. Taxydromeio ( talk) 06:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the denonym to North Macedonian. This is about the state, not the ethnic group. MichaelDim02 ( talk) 09:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
North Macedonia is the official candidate for EU and NATO membership. PLEASE add this information to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.179.94.178 ( talk) 09:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
First of all, the section is focusing a lot on the Serbianisation process going on in Serbian/Yugoslavian Macedonia, so it's useful to have the link to the full article there. Secondly, I don't think the reason for which King Alexander was assassinated is disputed. There are a lot of reasons, like with any historical event, but by far the most important one, which is the one mentioned here as it's not the main article, is his treatment of Macedonian Bulgarians. After all he was killed by a Macedonian Bulgarian, who was a member of an organisation whose goal was the independence of Serbian Macedonia as a Bulgarian state and end his assimilation policies on Macedonian Bulgarians. Again I don't think this is disputed. Of course we are omitting the contribution of the Ustashe, but their role was secondary. Perhaps we could change the sentence into: "King Alexander was killed for his assimilation policies towards Macedonian Bulgarians and Croats." to include the Ustashe invovlement, or "[by IMRO member Vlado Chernozemski], in an attempt to force the independence of Yugoslav Macedonia as a Bulgarian state", not even mentioning a motive, just in order to tie it into the article. We need a sentence like that to be there, because otherwise the assassination isn't connencted to the article. The reason the assassination is even mentioned is because it's related to the history of Yugoslav Macedonia. -- Antondimak ( talk) 12:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Given that the church of St Sophia is pivotal to the state, that is, it is the primary church of the MOC-OA and the historic church of the Ohrid Archbishop, I suggest replacing an image of a church which is already on the article with the more significant St Sophia preferably this image:
Regards -- 120.18.81.192 ( talk) 03:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Re this [1] revert-warring: per WP:NCMAC, we continue to use the old naming, i.e. plain "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia", for historical statements in contexts before 2019. Thus, a government in 2008 wasn't formed "in North Macedonia", because there was no such thing at the time. In addition, the choice between plain "M." and "Republic of M." in these cases continues to go by the same criteria as it used to under the old guideline, so whenever the context is unambiguous, plain "M." is preferred. In this article, the context is as obvious as it can possibly be, so the Prespa agreement was made "between Macedonia and Greece". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
In a recent
edit summary in this article,
Clicklander is claiming that "Greek Macedonia" is not a proper term.
In a follow-up discussion
in their talk page they repeat this claim several times in different forms: not an official and proper term
, nowhere used within official documents
, in the official bibliography
(whatever that is). I see that they also used the same argument in an edit to this article
back in February: There is no such a thing "Greek Macedonia".
I am aware that "Greek Macedonia" is not an official term, but it seems to me that it is a commonly used English term whenever there is need to distinguish the Greek region Macedonia from other meanings of the name. It is used in English-language newspapers as well as in academic publications (also in titles of books and articles). Can anyone confirm or refute this claim? --
T*U (
talk) 13:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
What I am simply saying is that the term "Greek Macedonia" is not an official name, it is a descriptive phrase as Khajidha pointed out. The official name is "Macedonia" not "Greek Macedonia" and an encyclopedic article owes to use the official name at first place. Therefore the proper term for starting a topic sentence in such an article should be something like "the Greek region of Macedonia" or "the Macedonia region in Greece" etc. I do not see an issue if such a descriptive phrase is also used in the article at a second place (e.g. "...ancient Kingdom of Macedon which falls within Greek Macedonia..."), but only after mentioning first in the paragraph the official name, so that it makes clear what is meant by the term "Greek Macedonia" later. I really do not understand why people oppose so hard that change and keep reverting my edit.
However, this is not the only issue with this sentence. It is written: "In the south, North Macedonia borders the region of Greek Macedonia, which administratively is split into three peripheries (one of them comprising both Western Thrace and a part of Greek Macedonia)". For someone who knows nothing about local geography this is misleading. In other words what is written here, is that this region is divided into three other administrative regions and one of them is again divided into two geographic regions, where one of them is Western Thrace. Anyone with common logic can easily assume that Western Thrace is a sub-region of Macedonia which is absolutely false! Western Thrace is a separate geographic region within Greece, not a part of either today Greek Macedonia region, nor of the entire modern geographic Macedonia region. I tried to write it in a better way to avoid this misleading meaning, if someone can rewire it even better, feel free to do it. But by just reverting it, sorry guys this is not called contribution! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a magazine and has to be very accurate on how names and terms are used in its articles. Clicklander ( talk) 10:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Under Names and etymology:
"Prior to June 2018, the use of the name Macedonia was disputed between Greece and the then-Republic of Macedonia." -> "Prior to June 2018, the use of the name Macedonia was disputed between Greece and the then-former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" "The Prespa agreement, signed by Macedonia [...]" -> "The Prespa agreement, signed by F.Y.R.O.M [...]"
[And although.......
I really can not see the reason for the part Ancient and Roman period reporting about the ancient kingdom of Paeonia. This is Hellenic and Roman history and the only relation with the Republic of North Macedonia is the current geographical position. The same applies for the Medieval and Ottoman period.
The history of the Republic of North Macedonia begins only after its separation from Serbia.
We should not hang pictures where they do not belong just to fill the walls.]
Under Ancient and Roman period
"Philip II of Macedon absorbed[56] the regions of Upper Macedonia (Lynkestis and Pelagonia) and the southern part of Paeonia (Deuriopus) into the kingdom of Macedon in 356 BC" this should be linked to Macedonia (ancient kingdom).
Under Medieval and Ottoman period:
"Slavic tribes settled in the Balkan region including North Macedonia by the late 6th century AD" should be "Slavic tribes settled in the Balkan region including that of North Macedonia by the late 6th century AD" The Republic of North Macedonia was not present back then. In "Presian's reign apparently coincides with the extension of Bulgarian control over the Slavic tribes in and around Macedonia." a link to Macedonia (region) would be nice. "Rumelia Eyalet was abolished in 1867 and that territory of Macedonia [...]" -> "Rumelia Eyalet was abolished in 1867 and that territory of North Macedonia [...]"
Greetings, Einserschüler ( talk) 12:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Einserschüler ( talk) 17:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering why the side table contains so much ethnic groups, but bulgarians are not mentioned even as tiny percent?
When you think about it, at first glance comes the bulgarian citizenship that macedonians try to gain(in order to travel freely in the EU). According to wikipedia`s own article there are 70 000 macedonians that recieved bulgarian citizenship(Source: /info/en/?search=Bulgarians_in_North_Macedonia). Bulgarian citizenship can be only obtained by proving your bulgarian origins(e.g. old documents that some of your fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers lived here and were exiled outside of Bulgaria for some reason or other kind of proof).
So when 70 000(~3.5% of the population) north macedonians themselves prove that they are ethnic bulgarians I think it is proper to mention them in the side table of Ethnic groups. IMO the number of real bulgarians should be a lot, a lot higher, but i don`t wanna go into this discussion now.
It is understandable that the second pragraph on Lead which writes:
The country became a member of the United Nations in April 1993, but as a result of a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia", [......] This renaming came into effect in February 2019.[f]
is placed that high on the lead, considering how important role it played in shaping the country's modern history. But shouldnt this section be trimmed abit to remove redudant info, and have it moved/merged with the history paragraph (4th paragraph on lead)?
For example, have it trimmed abit around here:
The country became a member of the United Nations in April 1993, but as a result of a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia", it was admitted under the provisional description the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[e] (abbreviated as FYR Macedonia and FYROM),
a term that was also used by some other international organisations, FIFA for instance. In June 2018, Macedonia and Greece resolved the conflict with an agreement that the country should rename itself Republic of North Macedonia. This renaming came into effect in February 2019.[f]
reason for trimming: the position of third organizations about a dispute is abit too redundant for the lead about a country. The country's lead should be shorter and more concise. (This info about int. organizations is present on the main body anyways).
And I propose we merge that trimmed paragraph with the rest of the lead's history section, two paragraphs lower:
The history of the region dates back to antiquity, beginning with the kingdom of Paeonia, probably a mixed Thraco-Illyrian polity.[17] In the late sixth century BC, the area was incorporated into the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then annexed by the kingdom of Macedonia in the fourth century BC. The Romans [..........] but after the end of the war, it returned under Serbian rule as part of the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Later, during the Second World War (1941–1944), it was ruled by Bulgaria again, and in 1945 it was established as a constituent state of communist Yugoslavia, which it remained until its peaceful secession in 1991. The country became a member of the United Nations in April 1993, but as a result of a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia", it was admitted under the provisional description the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[e] (abbreviated as FYR Macedonia and FYROM). In June 2018, Macedonia and Greece resolved the conflict with an agreement that the country should rename itself Republic of North Macedonia. This renaming came into effect in February 2019.[f]
Its not a big deal I think, just a small improvement which helps Lead emphasize more on the actual country itself. Any problems? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The recent edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=North_Macedonia&diff=909007372&oldid=908897473 is POV and it had no consensus on an archived edit request. The usage of "Macedonian Bulgarians" is basically label picking to create implications which align with certain points of view. King Aleksander had a harse policy to anyone resisting Serbinization which included Macedonists, Bulgarophiles, ect. 120.21.120.2 ( talk) 10:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
withing walking distance from the modern borders of Macedonia. The distance is about 90 km, and it would be very rough walking. -- T*U ( talk) 07:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Macedonia as a region is quite clearly defined? It would be nice if you could present the definition here together with a Relible source to back it up. -- T*U ( talk) 14:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Antondimak: I need to ask again: Do you have any
reliable source that this definition is pretty much agreed on an international level
? Or is it just your personal view and
original research? --
T*U (
talk) 16:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Macedonia as a region is quite clearly definedas an argument in a talk page discussion, you should be able to back it up with sources. If not, you should retract the statement. -- T*U ( talk) 17:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
"It was selected as North Macedonia's entry for the Best International Feature Film at the 92nd Academy Awards." per /info/en/?search=Honeyland_(2019_film) and here /info/en/?search=List_of_submissions_to_the_92nd_Academy_Awards_for_Best_International_Feature_Film — Preceding unsigned comment added by MtnBiker ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The demonym should be updated to add North Macedonian too even though it’s not official. It’s the same case and North Korea and South Korea. It’s not the formal demonym obviously, but since Wikipedia has the demonym ‘Kiwi’ for Zealand, I think we should at least add the demonym North Macedonian here. Taxydromeio ( talk) 07:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Just put both in there, like the Koreas do (as OP already mentioned). Though if it were up to me, I'd just go with the one to avoid cluttering everything up, but to satiate everyone, then put in both. That said, Korea's not really the best analogue for this case as "South Korea" and "North Korea" are informal colloquial terms. A better analogy would be that of South Africa, where "South Africa" is an integral part of the state's official name, like "North Macedonia" is here (hence why people from the RSA are referred to as "South Africans" rather than simply "Africans" [usually]). Plus, WaPo is an RS so if it's good enough for them, then by all means it should be good enough for here. Also it makes logical sense, the country's name is North Macedonia so it surely follows from that that the people who are from there are called North Macedonians, just like how Saint Lucians are from Saint Lucia. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 20:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I think you people are talking at cross-purposes here, as some seem to consider this a question of general naming guidelines, and others seem to be focussed merely on the specific question of what to link a certain entry in the infobox to. As for the general naming practice, let's stop re-litigating the naming RfC here, shall we? We discussed all of this to death. As for the link target, I agree there's something of a problem, but we don't seem to have a standard solution to it. Most European nation state articles have "demonym" entries linking to the name of the majority ethnic group (e.g. Germany linking to Germans), even for countries where minorities make up a similarly important part of the population (e.g. Turkey linking to Turkish people). Maybe the wisest thing is to do it the way the Poland article does it : simply not linking at all. That field in the infobox is meant to provide the simple linguistic information of what the name for the citizens is; there's no need it also has to link to something, especially since the population and ethnicity issues are already treated within this main article itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The nationality of the Second Party shall be Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, as it will be registered in all travel documents.Some have argued that this expression should therefore be used in its entirety. That's what the UN and the EU say, with a lengthy note reproducing almost identically Article 1 § 3(h) of the agreement:
The adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities as well as private entities and actors that are related to the State, are established by law, and enjoy financial support from State for activities abroad shall be in line with its official name or its short name, that is "of the Republic of North Macedonia" or "of North Macedonia". Other adjectival references, including "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may not be used in all of the above cases. Other adjectival usages, including those referring to private entities and actors, that are not related to the State and public entities, are not established by law and do not enjoy financial support from the State for activities abroad may be "Macedonian". The adjectival usage for activities may also be "Macedonian". This is without prejudice to the process established by the Final Agreement regarding commercial names, trademarks and brand names and to the compound names of cities that exist at the date of the signature of the Final Agreement.
it is not common English usage: I really wonder which part of "North Macedonian" is not correct or common English usage. "North Macedonia" was not a common denomination for the country until a few months ago, and then everybody seems to be happy to use it now (or maybe that is the problem).
even though it is ambiguous between the nationality (embodied in Prespa) and the ethnicity: it is funny how the ambiguity with the Greek region of Macedonia (or other uses of the word "Macedonia") does not seem to strike your mind. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
But suggesting that "Macedonian" is not the common English demonym for nationality just because it doesn't match ethnicity is not acceptable– I never said we should change the demonym...? All I said was that the linked article should not be about the ethnic group. I'm fine with the current fix of removing the link altogether. -- Michail ( blah) 15:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia. Career diplomat. Question of sources and citations. WP:BEFORE. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To just capitalize a historical nation/kingdom that needed to be capitalized. Concaaes ( talk) 01:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
north macedonia is not used in their wiki page in their own language, it reads Македонски (makedonski) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniodimitriadis ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update prime minister to Oliver Spasovski he has resigned recently.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-01/04/c_138677313.htm
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.106.242 ( talk) 16:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Is stating that North Macedonia "has one of the lowest per capita GDPs in Europe" in the leading paragraphs necessary? Especially because the articles on Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo have no mention of such thing in their leading paragraphs and they have lower GDP (PPP) per capita... I personally think this should be dropped for consistency. -- Beat of the tapan ( talk) 10:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Macedonia. Krakkos ( talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says North Macedonia is expected to join NATO by the end of 2019, but they haven't yet, and it's 2020 Windorrum ( talk) 03:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The later is obviously more historically accurate, while the first is due to wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty. Although, the policy to the best of my knowledge only applies to the main article title rather than its external usage in wikipedia. Given there is no other Samuel mentioned in this article, there is no need to disambiguate. Therefore I propose changing the name to "Tsar Samuel" or simply "Samuel". -- Beat of the tapan ( talk) 05:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
With the current success of the movie Honeyland could somebody please add the following sentence at the end of the Cinema section? Cheers and thank you very much in advance!
References
Not constructive. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am not sure what NATO made as a name of the Republic of Macedonia is applicable for the EU membership. Because of the neighbouring countries. Shouldn't we name the article Accession of North Macedonia to the European Union to Accession of Republic of Macedonia to the European Union? NAto is a North Atlantic Aliance, I don't understand how Macedonia neighbours the ocean? LOL So it is a South Macedonia in geography honestly. It is hot there. -- Alexsports ( talk) 13:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC) |
I have just come back from the ex-Yugoslav region and I had been in Macedonia right from the new year until a few days ago. That's by the by, but I wanted to say this: earlier there was a discussion somewhere about Macedonia per se being a widely used colloquialism. It appeared to be too early into the constitutional name change and the result appeared to be to leave it off. I believe I can safely say that "North" is not only rejected by the majority population, but considered an insult by all of those apart from the elite few with ties to Brussels. I am in favour of a bold mention of "Macedonia" in the lede. Sources are ubiquitous. I want some opinions first before making a bold addition. -- Juicy Oranges ( talk) 12:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
An article about the issue: 'Northies' Has Crept Into The Macedonian Debate. Will It Ever Go Away? By Andy Heil from RFE/RL's Balkan Service; June 25, 2019. Jingiby ( talk) 16:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Then on top of that there is much of YouTube such as Kanal 5 Vesti which only says "Makedonija", no "Severna/north", no "republika/republic". So the sources are there to show that the word by itself is common enough to warrant a mention on the article. -- Edin balgarin ( talk) 13:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Remember that English usage is not dictated by the Prespa Agreement. We changed the article title per Prespa, but relegating what is still clearly alternative English usage to the end of the lead as a "some ignorant sources haven't heard about Prespa yet" comment is inappropriate recognition that English language sources still use "Macedonia". Indeed, the New York Times (ref above) is perhaps indicative of what English usage in news sources might commonly look like: "North Macedonia" in the headline or first paragraph and "Macedonia" thereafter. -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 14:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
(outdent) I realize I'm a bit late to the party here, but the more I look at it, the less I like the whole addition of that sentence, with or without qualifications. In that position right after the first sentence it really makes little sense to an outside reader, because the "also still called" can't be understood if the recent renaming hasn't been mentioned before, which it hasn't at that point. And once you do know about the recent renaming, there's really no point in stating that it's "still called" that: wouldn't it be self-evident and trivial to any rational observer that a renaming like this wouldn't change everybody's language habits from one day to the next and that an older name would be likely to hang around for a while? But if what we want to express is really more than this triviality, i.e. if we wanted to talk about the political acceptance or non-acceptance of the renaming among the native speakers and so on, that would be far too complex for the lede and would also require a whole lot of better sourcing. Non-OR sourcing, i.w. actual secondary analysis of the linguistic state of affairs, not just random source snippets in which we have ourselves observed this or that naming practice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I think this is getting absurd. North Macedonia is clearly by far the most common name used by reliable sources, there is a disambiguation page, there is an explanation of the entire situation at the start of the article, and Google usually points to this article when users search for "Macedonia". I don't see this helping anyone, but only awkwardly preserving public misinformation. -- Antondimak ( talk) 10:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
for most history since it started being appearing in English publications, but I think we should care about current, not historical, usage. Moreover, to be clear, the name wasn't "Macedonia" before 2019. Before 2019 there was a very complicated situation, where at least two names existed in parallel. Finally, when I say "misinformation", I mean this is overcompensating for the readers not understanding the situation. There are already enough indications to let them understand, we don't need to "cater" to a misinformed belief that the country's name is Macedonia. -- Antondimak ( talk) 22:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
(outdent) This is a major issue that needs to be decided with community input, e.g. via RfC or some other mechanism. Whatever the case, there is no consensus for recent changes, so original status quo remains until a new consensus emerges. Khirurg ( talk) 18:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Notes
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The name is mistaken it should be Republic of Macedonia. We expect shortly this error to be corrected thank you and best regards. Mkdsime ( talk) 18:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
This sentence has some unnecessary repetitiveness to it:
"After the ceremony, Tsipras, along with his North Macedonian counterpart, crossed over the border to the North Macedonian side of Lake Prespa for lunch at the village of Oteševo, in a highly symbolic move that marked the first time a Greek Prime Minister had entered the country since it declared independence in 1991."
Can we simplify it like this:
"After the ceremony, Tsipras and Zaev crossed over the border to the other side of Lake Prespa for lunch at the village of Oteševo, in a highly symbolic move that marked the first time a Greek Prime Minister had entered the country since it declared independence in 1991."
The context of who Tsipras and Zaev are is established earlier in the text. GStojanov ( talk) 18:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change IPA-bg to IPA-mk. GStojanov ( talk) 12:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov ( talk) 12:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "The fauna of North Macedonian forests" with "The fauna of the forests". Rationale: The context is already well established, the name of the country is mentioned 10 times already. GStojanov ( talk) 13:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov ( talk) 13:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I suggest dropping the mention that there is a Bulgarian minority in the opening few paragraphs as there is no modern evidence to indicate a significant Bulgarian minority. Official censuses in the Republic of Macedonia and Yugoslavia are contrary to the statement. -- Anti political shills ( talk) 00:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "According to Eurostat data, North Macedonian PPS GDP per capita" to "According to Eurostat data the PPS GDP per capita" Rationale: The context is already established. This paragraph alone mentions North Macedonia five times. It is way too repetitive. GStojanov ( talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov ( talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering when the RfC will be ready. I think it closed 3 weeks ago.-- Europarliament ( talk) 19:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change: "The North Macedonian education system consists of" with "The education system of North Macedonia consists of" GStojanov ( talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov ( talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with using the adjectival term "North Macedonian" here. We would talk about the "North Macedonian educational system" the same way we'd talk about say, the "South African educational system". As for cumbersome, I'd argue it is more so than using the adjectival since it adds an extra word "of" into the sentence. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 18:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "village of Oteševo on the North Macedonian side" to "village of Oteševo on the Macedonian side". Rationale: At the time of the event the name of the country was: Macedonia, so according to WP:NCMAC.3.2: "In historical contexts referring to events between 1992 and 2019, Wikipedia articles will continue to refer to the country by its then-current official name" we should use either the then current name or then current adjective. GStojanov ( talk) 12:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC) GStojanov ( talk) 12:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
In this sentence we have an adjectival reference that is questionable. We refer to the past using a current adjectival reference:
"The territory of the modern North Macedonian state was annexed by Serbia and named South Serbia."
I suggest we reformat is like this:
"The territory of the modern Macedonian state was annexed by Serbia and named South Serbia."
or like this:
"The territory of the modern state of North Macedonia was annexed by Serbia and named South Serbia."
I prefer the first choice, but the second is acceptable too. GStojanov ( talk) 16:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last sentence of the Medieval and Ottoman period section is problematic. "and the territory of Macedonia subsequently became part of the province of Manastir Vilayet until the end of Ottoman rule in 1912." This is simply not true. Only Western Macedonia was part of the Manastir Vilayet. The rest of Macedonia was under other vilayets. I think if we change only the word "the" to "that" it will make perfect sense: "and that territory of Macedonia....", since the author is only referring to "north-western North Macedonia" in this paragraph. -- Jorisvda ( talk) 19:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I am talking about this sentence:
Prior to February 2019, in Macedonian the country name was Македонија, officially Република Македонија; in Albanian Maqedonia, officially Republika e Maqedonisë; in Turkish Makedonya, officially Makedonya Cumhuriyeti; in Romani Makedoniya, officially Republika Makedoniya; in Serbian and Bosnian Makedonija, officially Republika Makedonija; in Aromanian Machedonia, officially Republica Machedonia.
It is clear that the sentence is a nod to the minority languages spoken in North Macedonia, namely Turkish, Romani, Serbian and Bosnian, and Aromanian. It is also very clear that the sentence is a reworked remnant from the time the country hadn't changed its name yet. Right now, there are only two logical ways this can go:
a) include the current name of the country in all these languages in the info bar in order to keep this sentence, or b) scrap the utterly pointless sentence altogether. The article already establishes in its second sentence what the country's previous name was in English.
Option (a) is logical, it is also however ludicrous. No English-speaker is interested in either the current or the former Turkish, Romani or Aromanian name of the country. Even more so, similar articles about other countries which changed their official name, be it because the country's polity or the country's everyday name changed, do not recite every previous name of the country, or predecessor of that country, in that country's language(s).
Suggestion: scrap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:712D:8F00:E04A:F0E0:8E7A:9FD4 ( talk) 21:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree. It makes the article unnecessarily long as well. Taxydromeio ( talk) 06:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the denonym to North Macedonian. This is about the state, not the ethnic group. MichaelDim02 ( talk) 09:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
North Macedonia is the official candidate for EU and NATO membership. PLEASE add this information to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.179.94.178 ( talk) 09:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
First of all, the section is focusing a lot on the Serbianisation process going on in Serbian/Yugoslavian Macedonia, so it's useful to have the link to the full article there. Secondly, I don't think the reason for which King Alexander was assassinated is disputed. There are a lot of reasons, like with any historical event, but by far the most important one, which is the one mentioned here as it's not the main article, is his treatment of Macedonian Bulgarians. After all he was killed by a Macedonian Bulgarian, who was a member of an organisation whose goal was the independence of Serbian Macedonia as a Bulgarian state and end his assimilation policies on Macedonian Bulgarians. Again I don't think this is disputed. Of course we are omitting the contribution of the Ustashe, but their role was secondary. Perhaps we could change the sentence into: "King Alexander was killed for his assimilation policies towards Macedonian Bulgarians and Croats." to include the Ustashe invovlement, or "[by IMRO member Vlado Chernozemski], in an attempt to force the independence of Yugoslav Macedonia as a Bulgarian state", not even mentioning a motive, just in order to tie it into the article. We need a sentence like that to be there, because otherwise the assassination isn't connencted to the article. The reason the assassination is even mentioned is because it's related to the history of Yugoslav Macedonia. -- Antondimak ( talk) 12:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Given that the church of St Sophia is pivotal to the state, that is, it is the primary church of the MOC-OA and the historic church of the Ohrid Archbishop, I suggest replacing an image of a church which is already on the article with the more significant St Sophia preferably this image:
Regards -- 120.18.81.192 ( talk) 03:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Re this [1] revert-warring: per WP:NCMAC, we continue to use the old naming, i.e. plain "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia", for historical statements in contexts before 2019. Thus, a government in 2008 wasn't formed "in North Macedonia", because there was no such thing at the time. In addition, the choice between plain "M." and "Republic of M." in these cases continues to go by the same criteria as it used to under the old guideline, so whenever the context is unambiguous, plain "M." is preferred. In this article, the context is as obvious as it can possibly be, so the Prespa agreement was made "between Macedonia and Greece". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
In a recent
edit summary in this article,
Clicklander is claiming that "Greek Macedonia" is not a proper term.
In a follow-up discussion
in their talk page they repeat this claim several times in different forms: not an official and proper term
, nowhere used within official documents
, in the official bibliography
(whatever that is). I see that they also used the same argument in an edit to this article
back in February: There is no such a thing "Greek Macedonia".
I am aware that "Greek Macedonia" is not an official term, but it seems to me that it is a commonly used English term whenever there is need to distinguish the Greek region Macedonia from other meanings of the name. It is used in English-language newspapers as well as in academic publications (also in titles of books and articles). Can anyone confirm or refute this claim? --
T*U (
talk) 13:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
What I am simply saying is that the term "Greek Macedonia" is not an official name, it is a descriptive phrase as Khajidha pointed out. The official name is "Macedonia" not "Greek Macedonia" and an encyclopedic article owes to use the official name at first place. Therefore the proper term for starting a topic sentence in such an article should be something like "the Greek region of Macedonia" or "the Macedonia region in Greece" etc. I do not see an issue if such a descriptive phrase is also used in the article at a second place (e.g. "...ancient Kingdom of Macedon which falls within Greek Macedonia..."), but only after mentioning first in the paragraph the official name, so that it makes clear what is meant by the term "Greek Macedonia" later. I really do not understand why people oppose so hard that change and keep reverting my edit.
However, this is not the only issue with this sentence. It is written: "In the south, North Macedonia borders the region of Greek Macedonia, which administratively is split into three peripheries (one of them comprising both Western Thrace and a part of Greek Macedonia)". For someone who knows nothing about local geography this is misleading. In other words what is written here, is that this region is divided into three other administrative regions and one of them is again divided into two geographic regions, where one of them is Western Thrace. Anyone with common logic can easily assume that Western Thrace is a sub-region of Macedonia which is absolutely false! Western Thrace is a separate geographic region within Greece, not a part of either today Greek Macedonia region, nor of the entire modern geographic Macedonia region. I tried to write it in a better way to avoid this misleading meaning, if someone can rewire it even better, feel free to do it. But by just reverting it, sorry guys this is not called contribution! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a magazine and has to be very accurate on how names and terms are used in its articles. Clicklander ( talk) 10:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Under Names and etymology:
"Prior to June 2018, the use of the name Macedonia was disputed between Greece and the then-Republic of Macedonia." -> "Prior to June 2018, the use of the name Macedonia was disputed between Greece and the then-former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" "The Prespa agreement, signed by Macedonia [...]" -> "The Prespa agreement, signed by F.Y.R.O.M [...]"
[And although.......
I really can not see the reason for the part Ancient and Roman period reporting about the ancient kingdom of Paeonia. This is Hellenic and Roman history and the only relation with the Republic of North Macedonia is the current geographical position. The same applies for the Medieval and Ottoman period.
The history of the Republic of North Macedonia begins only after its separation from Serbia.
We should not hang pictures where they do not belong just to fill the walls.]
Under Ancient and Roman period
"Philip II of Macedon absorbed[56] the regions of Upper Macedonia (Lynkestis and Pelagonia) and the southern part of Paeonia (Deuriopus) into the kingdom of Macedon in 356 BC" this should be linked to Macedonia (ancient kingdom).
Under Medieval and Ottoman period:
"Slavic tribes settled in the Balkan region including North Macedonia by the late 6th century AD" should be "Slavic tribes settled in the Balkan region including that of North Macedonia by the late 6th century AD" The Republic of North Macedonia was not present back then. In "Presian's reign apparently coincides with the extension of Bulgarian control over the Slavic tribes in and around Macedonia." a link to Macedonia (region) would be nice. "Rumelia Eyalet was abolished in 1867 and that territory of Macedonia [...]" -> "Rumelia Eyalet was abolished in 1867 and that territory of North Macedonia [...]"
Greetings, Einserschüler ( talk) 12:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Einserschüler ( talk) 17:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering why the side table contains so much ethnic groups, but bulgarians are not mentioned even as tiny percent?
When you think about it, at first glance comes the bulgarian citizenship that macedonians try to gain(in order to travel freely in the EU). According to wikipedia`s own article there are 70 000 macedonians that recieved bulgarian citizenship(Source: /info/en/?search=Bulgarians_in_North_Macedonia). Bulgarian citizenship can be only obtained by proving your bulgarian origins(e.g. old documents that some of your fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers lived here and were exiled outside of Bulgaria for some reason or other kind of proof).
So when 70 000(~3.5% of the population) north macedonians themselves prove that they are ethnic bulgarians I think it is proper to mention them in the side table of Ethnic groups. IMO the number of real bulgarians should be a lot, a lot higher, but i don`t wanna go into this discussion now.
It is understandable that the second pragraph on Lead which writes:
The country became a member of the United Nations in April 1993, but as a result of a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia", [......] This renaming came into effect in February 2019.[f]
is placed that high on the lead, considering how important role it played in shaping the country's modern history. But shouldnt this section be trimmed abit to remove redudant info, and have it moved/merged with the history paragraph (4th paragraph on lead)?
For example, have it trimmed abit around here:
The country became a member of the United Nations in April 1993, but as a result of a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia", it was admitted under the provisional description the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[e] (abbreviated as FYR Macedonia and FYROM),
a term that was also used by some other international organisations, FIFA for instance. In June 2018, Macedonia and Greece resolved the conflict with an agreement that the country should rename itself Republic of North Macedonia. This renaming came into effect in February 2019.[f]
reason for trimming: the position of third organizations about a dispute is abit too redundant for the lead about a country. The country's lead should be shorter and more concise. (This info about int. organizations is present on the main body anyways).
And I propose we merge that trimmed paragraph with the rest of the lead's history section, two paragraphs lower:
The history of the region dates back to antiquity, beginning with the kingdom of Paeonia, probably a mixed Thraco-Illyrian polity.[17] In the late sixth century BC, the area was incorporated into the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then annexed by the kingdom of Macedonia in the fourth century BC. The Romans [..........] but after the end of the war, it returned under Serbian rule as part of the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Later, during the Second World War (1941–1944), it was ruled by Bulgaria again, and in 1945 it was established as a constituent state of communist Yugoslavia, which it remained until its peaceful secession in 1991. The country became a member of the United Nations in April 1993, but as a result of a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia", it was admitted under the provisional description the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[e] (abbreviated as FYR Macedonia and FYROM). In June 2018, Macedonia and Greece resolved the conflict with an agreement that the country should rename itself Republic of North Macedonia. This renaming came into effect in February 2019.[f]
Its not a big deal I think, just a small improvement which helps Lead emphasize more on the actual country itself. Any problems? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The recent edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=North_Macedonia&diff=909007372&oldid=908897473 is POV and it had no consensus on an archived edit request. The usage of "Macedonian Bulgarians" is basically label picking to create implications which align with certain points of view. King Aleksander had a harse policy to anyone resisting Serbinization which included Macedonists, Bulgarophiles, ect. 120.21.120.2 ( talk) 10:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
withing walking distance from the modern borders of Macedonia. The distance is about 90 km, and it would be very rough walking. -- T*U ( talk) 07:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Macedonia as a region is quite clearly defined? It would be nice if you could present the definition here together with a Relible source to back it up. -- T*U ( talk) 14:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Antondimak: I need to ask again: Do you have any
reliable source that this definition is pretty much agreed on an international level
? Or is it just your personal view and
original research? --
T*U (
talk) 16:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Macedonia as a region is quite clearly definedas an argument in a talk page discussion, you should be able to back it up with sources. If not, you should retract the statement. -- T*U ( talk) 17:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
"It was selected as North Macedonia's entry for the Best International Feature Film at the 92nd Academy Awards." per /info/en/?search=Honeyland_(2019_film) and here /info/en/?search=List_of_submissions_to_the_92nd_Academy_Awards_for_Best_International_Feature_Film — Preceding unsigned comment added by MtnBiker ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The demonym should be updated to add North Macedonian too even though it’s not official. It’s the same case and North Korea and South Korea. It’s not the formal demonym obviously, but since Wikipedia has the demonym ‘Kiwi’ for Zealand, I think we should at least add the demonym North Macedonian here. Taxydromeio ( talk) 07:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Just put both in there, like the Koreas do (as OP already mentioned). Though if it were up to me, I'd just go with the one to avoid cluttering everything up, but to satiate everyone, then put in both. That said, Korea's not really the best analogue for this case as "South Korea" and "North Korea" are informal colloquial terms. A better analogy would be that of South Africa, where "South Africa" is an integral part of the state's official name, like "North Macedonia" is here (hence why people from the RSA are referred to as "South Africans" rather than simply "Africans" [usually]). Plus, WaPo is an RS so if it's good enough for them, then by all means it should be good enough for here. Also it makes logical sense, the country's name is North Macedonia so it surely follows from that that the people who are from there are called North Macedonians, just like how Saint Lucians are from Saint Lucia. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 20:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I think you people are talking at cross-purposes here, as some seem to consider this a question of general naming guidelines, and others seem to be focussed merely on the specific question of what to link a certain entry in the infobox to. As for the general naming practice, let's stop re-litigating the naming RfC here, shall we? We discussed all of this to death. As for the link target, I agree there's something of a problem, but we don't seem to have a standard solution to it. Most European nation state articles have "demonym" entries linking to the name of the majority ethnic group (e.g. Germany linking to Germans), even for countries where minorities make up a similarly important part of the population (e.g. Turkey linking to Turkish people). Maybe the wisest thing is to do it the way the Poland article does it : simply not linking at all. That field in the infobox is meant to provide the simple linguistic information of what the name for the citizens is; there's no need it also has to link to something, especially since the population and ethnicity issues are already treated within this main article itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The nationality of the Second Party shall be Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, as it will be registered in all travel documents.Some have argued that this expression should therefore be used in its entirety. That's what the UN and the EU say, with a lengthy note reproducing almost identically Article 1 § 3(h) of the agreement:
The adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities as well as private entities and actors that are related to the State, are established by law, and enjoy financial support from State for activities abroad shall be in line with its official name or its short name, that is "of the Republic of North Macedonia" or "of North Macedonia". Other adjectival references, including "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may not be used in all of the above cases. Other adjectival usages, including those referring to private entities and actors, that are not related to the State and public entities, are not established by law and do not enjoy financial support from the State for activities abroad may be "Macedonian". The adjectival usage for activities may also be "Macedonian". This is without prejudice to the process established by the Final Agreement regarding commercial names, trademarks and brand names and to the compound names of cities that exist at the date of the signature of the Final Agreement.
it is not common English usage: I really wonder which part of "North Macedonian" is not correct or common English usage. "North Macedonia" was not a common denomination for the country until a few months ago, and then everybody seems to be happy to use it now (or maybe that is the problem).
even though it is ambiguous between the nationality (embodied in Prespa) and the ethnicity: it is funny how the ambiguity with the Greek region of Macedonia (or other uses of the word "Macedonia") does not seem to strike your mind. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
But suggesting that "Macedonian" is not the common English demonym for nationality just because it doesn't match ethnicity is not acceptable– I never said we should change the demonym...? All I said was that the linked article should not be about the ethnic group. I'm fine with the current fix of removing the link altogether. -- Michail ( blah) 15:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia. Career diplomat. Question of sources and citations. WP:BEFORE. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To just capitalize a historical nation/kingdom that needed to be capitalized. Concaaes ( talk) 01:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
north macedonia is not used in their wiki page in their own language, it reads Македонски (makedonski) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniodimitriadis ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update prime minister to Oliver Spasovski he has resigned recently.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-01/04/c_138677313.htm
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.106.242 ( talk) 16:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Is stating that North Macedonia "has one of the lowest per capita GDPs in Europe" in the leading paragraphs necessary? Especially because the articles on Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo have no mention of such thing in their leading paragraphs and they have lower GDP (PPP) per capita... I personally think this should be dropped for consistency. -- Beat of the tapan ( talk) 10:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Macedonia. Krakkos ( talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says North Macedonia is expected to join NATO by the end of 2019, but they haven't yet, and it's 2020 Windorrum ( talk) 03:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The later is obviously more historically accurate, while the first is due to wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty. Although, the policy to the best of my knowledge only applies to the main article title rather than its external usage in wikipedia. Given there is no other Samuel mentioned in this article, there is no need to disambiguate. Therefore I propose changing the name to "Tsar Samuel" or simply "Samuel". -- Beat of the tapan ( talk) 05:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
North Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
With the current success of the movie Honeyland could somebody please add the following sentence at the end of the Cinema section? Cheers and thank you very much in advance!
References
Not constructive. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am not sure what NATO made as a name of the Republic of Macedonia is applicable for the EU membership. Because of the neighbouring countries. Shouldn't we name the article Accession of North Macedonia to the European Union to Accession of Republic of Macedonia to the European Union? NAto is a North Atlantic Aliance, I don't understand how Macedonia neighbours the ocean? LOL So it is a South Macedonia in geography honestly. It is hot there. -- Alexsports ( talk) 13:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC) |
I have just come back from the ex-Yugoslav region and I had been in Macedonia right from the new year until a few days ago. That's by the by, but I wanted to say this: earlier there was a discussion somewhere about Macedonia per se being a widely used colloquialism. It appeared to be too early into the constitutional name change and the result appeared to be to leave it off. I believe I can safely say that "North" is not only rejected by the majority population, but considered an insult by all of those apart from the elite few with ties to Brussels. I am in favour of a bold mention of "Macedonia" in the lede. Sources are ubiquitous. I want some opinions first before making a bold addition. -- Juicy Oranges ( talk) 12:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
An article about the issue: 'Northies' Has Crept Into The Macedonian Debate. Will It Ever Go Away? By Andy Heil from RFE/RL's Balkan Service; June 25, 2019. Jingiby ( talk) 16:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Then on top of that there is much of YouTube such as Kanal 5 Vesti which only says "Makedonija", no "Severna/north", no "republika/republic". So the sources are there to show that the word by itself is common enough to warrant a mention on the article. -- Edin balgarin ( talk) 13:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Remember that English usage is not dictated by the Prespa Agreement. We changed the article title per Prespa, but relegating what is still clearly alternative English usage to the end of the lead as a "some ignorant sources haven't heard about Prespa yet" comment is inappropriate recognition that English language sources still use "Macedonia". Indeed, the New York Times (ref above) is perhaps indicative of what English usage in news sources might commonly look like: "North Macedonia" in the headline or first paragraph and "Macedonia" thereafter. -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 14:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
(outdent) I realize I'm a bit late to the party here, but the more I look at it, the less I like the whole addition of that sentence, with or without qualifications. In that position right after the first sentence it really makes little sense to an outside reader, because the "also still called" can't be understood if the recent renaming hasn't been mentioned before, which it hasn't at that point. And once you do know about the recent renaming, there's really no point in stating that it's "still called" that: wouldn't it be self-evident and trivial to any rational observer that a renaming like this wouldn't change everybody's language habits from one day to the next and that an older name would be likely to hang around for a while? But if what we want to express is really more than this triviality, i.e. if we wanted to talk about the political acceptance or non-acceptance of the renaming among the native speakers and so on, that would be far too complex for the lede and would also require a whole lot of better sourcing. Non-OR sourcing, i.w. actual secondary analysis of the linguistic state of affairs, not just random source snippets in which we have ourselves observed this or that naming practice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I think this is getting absurd. North Macedonia is clearly by far the most common name used by reliable sources, there is a disambiguation page, there is an explanation of the entire situation at the start of the article, and Google usually points to this article when users search for "Macedonia". I don't see this helping anyone, but only awkwardly preserving public misinformation. -- Antondimak ( talk) 10:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
for most history since it started being appearing in English publications, but I think we should care about current, not historical, usage. Moreover, to be clear, the name wasn't "Macedonia" before 2019. Before 2019 there was a very complicated situation, where at least two names existed in parallel. Finally, when I say "misinformation", I mean this is overcompensating for the readers not understanding the situation. There are already enough indications to let them understand, we don't need to "cater" to a misinformed belief that the country's name is Macedonia. -- Antondimak ( talk) 22:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
(outdent) This is a major issue that needs to be decided with community input, e.g. via RfC or some other mechanism. Whatever the case, there is no consensus for recent changes, so original status quo remains until a new consensus emerges. Khirurg ( talk) 18:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Notes