Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 26 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus NOT TO MOVE at the present time. I also note a consensus to hold off on any sort of move request until February 8, 2019, at the earliest. Whoever proposes the next move request should note that we are not the news and must follow reliable sources (WP:RS). I imagine that such a further request will be successful. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia → North Macedonia Greek ratified the agreement. --Sharouser (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I am a Greek. The agreement was ratified by the parliament but the protocol for NATO acccession of North Macedonia willl be ratified in a few days. The AgGreement stipulates that until this ratification the renaming does not come into effect. But, in fact the page can be renamed now.--Soccererer (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The question does not seem to be if but when. Do we wait for NATO? Certainly we must wait for ARBMAC, though it doesn't seem like it will be controversial. I would propose Republic of North Macedonia, with North Macedonia as an alternate name, then see how that plays out in terms of usage. At any rate, there are a few related discussions above, and perhaps we can consolidate them here under the RM. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait: The name refers to a proper noun that will become outdated, and therefore inaccurate, once the renaming takes effect. However, per nom, the agreement requires that the NATO accession protocol be ratified before the renaming becomes effective. We would be jumping the gun by moving the article now. Once the renaming officially takes effect and there is no longer such an entity as the Republic of Macedonia, I would support a move to North Macedonia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: I also support a move to North Macedonia. Waiting until the NATO protocol is ratified is one option. At the same time the constitution of the country has officially been ratified under the Prespa Agreement and now reads the Republic of North Macedonia so changing it now would probably not be controversialWeatherextremes (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    Have you seen the actual amended articles of the constitution? As far as I know, they may specify that the name does not go into effect until the Prespa agreement enters into force, or until the NATO protocol is ratified. Would like to know that actually. GeoEvan (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: I support the move. There is no sense to wait anymore. W00lyt (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    Just to add that according to this Greek article [1] the NATO protocol ratification by Greece would take place around two weeks from today. With Greece's ratification, the Prespa Agreement will come officially into force Weatherextremes (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Might the best solution be to create a new article? Let us not forget that there are Wikipedia articles for countries that no longer exist such as Kampuchea and Rhodesia, even if there were no boundary changes which coincided with the name change. Dovea (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's a good idea here. There's not only no boundary changes, but there's essentially no other change either. No change of regime, no change of constitution, no change of flag or other symbols; it's really just the name alone that changes. It's still, to all extents and purposes, the same state as before, not a new state on the same territory. If there were two articles, virtually all the contents would have to be duplicated between them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Comment: The agreement actually does forbid the use of the Vergina Sun as a public symbol by North Macedonia. However, it doesn’t change the political system of North Macedonia. I believe the differing political systems are why the Kampuchea & Rhodesia articles exist, so I don’t see any reason to create a new article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: I support the move. The process is 85% finished, I don't think there is a need to wait even longer. Macedonicus (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait: We should not ever be changing official names before they're officially changed (and actually, the text of the the Prespa agreement says it enters into force once the two countries' governments notify each other within two weeks of the last ratification - it says nothing about the NATO protocol having to be ratified first; see here [2] Article 20(4)).
    In addition to that, if the article is to be moved to North Macedonia rather than Republic of North Macedonia, since it's the norm for country articles to be located at the countries' common English short name (I presume Republic of Macedonia is a special case because of the need for a compromise in relation to the name controversy), then we need to first establish that North Macedonia is indeed the name in predominant use among reliable sources. My suggested procedure would be to (1) move to Republic of North Macedonia once reliable sources indicate that the name change is in effect (which they have not yet - on the contrary, see sources such as this one: [3]), and (2) if and when it becomes clear that the short form North Macedonia is the name predominantly used in reliable sources going forward, then and only then should the article be moved from Republic of North Macedonia to North Macedonia.
    GeoEvan (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Do we really need to over complicate things like that? Short name as per the agreement is North Macedonia. --Macedonicus (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Macedonicus here. IMO once the country is officially renamed to 'North Macedonia' we should just use the short name. — Tom(T2ME) 15:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The Prespa Agreement is very clear: The country's full name is "Republic of North Macedonia" and the country's short name is "North Macedonia". Plus, the demonym for state institutions, laws, papers, and bodies is "North Macedonian", and demonym for Citizens themselves is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia". --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we should take into account whether or not a move now would be controversial or not as well. We know for a fact that the constitution now reads Republic of North Macedonia and only there are only a few formalities until the agreement enters into force. What is the point of actually waiting? It will happen. The political process is over. Now it is only a matter of formalities. Weatherextremes (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait is the only allowed option per policy. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and changing the name of a country before it has actually changed is a definite no. Jeppiz (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes but the name has changed! That is my point. The constitution of the country now reads Republic of North Macedonia. What has not happened is the Prespa Agreement entering into full force. Weatherextremes (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Weatherextremes: Nope. It has not. The Legal procedures for the Name Change will be completed the moment the Greek Parliament ratifies the NATO Accession Protocol for the Republic of North Macedonia. Only then the Prespa Agreement goes into full force. Until then, it is still "Republic of Macedonia". This is due to eight Macedonian MPs of the Assembly of Macedonia (who defected from VMRO-DPMNE) conditioning the starting date of the Prespa Agreement on Macedonia's entry to NATO. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Most definitely Wait a little bit more per the comments above. It won't hurt anyone to take our time. We should think this good before we take the next move. Creating a new article for a same country with a different constitutional name seems pointless to be honest. But yeah, for the rename, maybe just wait a little bit more. — Tom(T2ME) 11:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move once we have evidence that the renaming has officially taken effect. This might be a matter of days or a few weeks, as far as I can see. GeoEvan's argument above, that we should first wait to see how English usage reacts in practice, is well taken; however, since the article is now titled according to the current full official name, we know for a fact that this current official name ("Republic of Macedonia") will no longer be correct, so whatever English usage does, the article can't really stay here. If we had gone for "Macedonia" pure and simple earlier, there'd be a case to make that there's a realistic possibility English usage will still continue to use that as an informal short form and that therefore the article should stay until there's evidence to the contrary, but with "Republic of Macedonia" I don't see that working. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: It is de facto the new name of the republic. Chances that the agreement be undone are almost zero. Bes-ARTTalk 13:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: The Parliament of the country changed the constitution so now it is officially called North Macedonia.--Udha (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait / Comment: We know that both parliaments ratified the agreement. But can anyone with intimate knowledge of the constitutional proceedings of both countries and Prespa Agreement tell us when is actual date when it comes in force and Macedonia is officially renamed to Republic of North Macedonia? From what I understand the constitutional amendement has not yet been submitted to President of Macedonia for signature and generally these things come to force only when they are made public in list of laws. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@EllsworthSK: the Speaker of the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia, Talat Xhaferi, made it clear that this won't be a problem; if President Ivanov refuses to sign, the Speaker can do so in his place and then have it published in the Official Gazette. And so he did. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 17:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and commence a discussion on renewing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) with a move after consensus has been reached on updating MOSMAC.Resnjari (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: The change is de facto complete. Spare us the flame. Andreas George Skinner (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait: The agreement should first be signed by the President, and (according to rumors inside New Democracy), there is a chance that Pavlopoulos will resign over the agreement. I am here to contribute (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@I am here to contribute: sorry but these are Fake News. President Prokopis Pavlopoulos is in favor of the Prespa Agreement and New Democracy is just becoming the Greek version of VMRO-DPMNE: A populist political party. Current New Democracy president was exposed a month ago by German media that he told his European partners he is secretly in favor of the Prespa Agreement too but due to the upcoming elections, he doesn't want to admit it publicly. You get an idea of how unreliable this political party has become lately. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for ratification of NATO Accession Protocol, then move: the Prespa Agreement (and change of Constitutional name) goes in force only once all the legal procedures are completed (they complete with the ratification of the NATO accession protocol by Greece). According to the sources, Constitutional amendments for renaming the country into North Macedonia, are conditioned (per demand of the 8 defected VMRO-DPMNE MPs of the Macedonian Parliament) on the ratification of the NATO protocol by the Greek Parliament first. This move will be a mistake if done now, while the legal procedures are not completed yet. The country still is "Republic of Macedonia" officially. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 17:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Amendment to Macedonian constitution hasn't been published yet and they are still not in force. Also process of ratification of the Prespa Agreement is not finished. Wikipedia needs reliable sources say that the new country name has come into force. Aotearoa (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Aotearoa: sorry, the Amendments to Macedonian Constitution were already published in the country's Official Gazette as this is a condition for the Verbal Note to be sent by the Macedonian Foreign Ministry to Greece;s Foreign Ministry. The Name Change procedures will be completed, not with publication in the Official Gazette, but on the condition that the NATO Accession Protocol is ratified by Greece the coming weeks (per request of 8 Macedonian MPs from VMRO-DPMNE). --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move after all legal procedures are ended. Jingiby (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait till the renaming process ends. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move:. I am Greek. Let's wait a little for the secondary sources to update with the name and the legal procedure to end. The Greeks and the Macedonians had to wait 27 years for this to happen, surely some temper for this ravaged and warred to death article is prudent. Dante 80 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion is being linked to on outside resources (including Reddit) for the sake of brigading, take that into consideration.--Catlemur (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Hmm, that's weird. Why would people out there on Reddit believe this discussion is in need of canvassing? I know we had all sorts of external shenanigans back in 2009 when there was the question of moving to plain "Macedonia", but now, what's their beef? Which direction are they trying to push it in? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Comment:: I am afraid this Move Request came early. The Prespa Agreement will go into full force by 8 February 2019, once all the legal procedures for the Constitutional Name changes are completed. [4]

  • The President of the Hellenic Republic, Prokopis Pavlopoulos, will sign the law on the Prespa Agreement and then it will be published this Monday 28 January 2019 in the country's Official Gazette and information will be sent to the NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg that it has been ratified.
  • Then the NATO's 29 permanent representatives will sign the North Macedonia accession protocol to the Alliance and this will be sent to the capitals of the 29 countries for ratification by their national Parliaments.
  • Then the Greek Parliament will ratify it first (and before all other national Parliaments) and, after Athen's ratification, a verbatim note will be sent to the Republic of Macedonia that Greece has ratified the NATO admission protocol.
  • Skopje will send to Athens and the United Nations Secretariat, information that the agreement comes into full force and at the same time Skopje will send a formal letter to all the UN member states and international organizations that the country's new name is North Macedonia and will be recognized by that name, from that day and on.
  • After that, the President of the Hellenic Republic will sign the NATO Accession Protocol of North Macedonia and send the relevant verbatim note to Washington and NATO (which is the guardian of the agreement) to complete the legal process.

--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the info. That's two weeks ahead then, just the right time frame for a good thorough move discussion. There shouldn't be a problem with keeping this RM open or on hold until then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move. Though it's not entirely improper to propose a move before official usage changes, it should go without saying that if the result is "move", the move itself should not be implemented until the name becomes official. Unlike with the Czech situation, it's unlikely there will be any controversy over the eventual move. ONR (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move I'm in favor of waiting until it is official, since that should not be long. Also I agree with GeoEvan above that the first step should be to "Republic of North Macedonia." For one thing, a snap shot of RS's right now would show a predominance of reports that the country changed its name to RNM, and few that have gotten around to referring to it as NM yet. In time, sources will likely shorten it to North Macedonia, but strictly speaking the full name would likely be the most common usage for the time being. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)*

Comment The constitution of North Macedonia has changed. It is de facto the new name. Here is an example of why the move needs to happen. This is from Israel's Foreign Affairs Ministry which from yesterday lists North Macedonia with the new name. So even though the Prespa Agreement has not entered into full force the name is already de facto North Macedonia [5] [6] So I am pretty sure that if Israel's diplomacy considers it safe to use the name from now they know something dont they? I mean they are a Foreign Affairs Ministry. Weatherextremes (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to look at the Macedonian Foreign Affairs Ministry since it is about them..... --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 20:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for official renaming and move when the country officially changes its name. Also Comment what should the demonym be? North Macedonian? Is the Macedonian language now the North Macedonian language? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The demonym is North Macedonian when referring to the state (eg. the North Macedonian Prime Minister). The deal says that the RoM cannot use the term 'Macedonia' to describe itself, it must use the new name North Macedonia. The citizens are described as "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia". The language, though, is just Macedonian. --Michail (blah) 01:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move In favour of moving but let's wait until the process has finished. --Michail (blah) 01:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree as the Prespa Agreement also involves a few others things like identity and language etc, and those have to be sorted out as well in terms of how to express those elements in relation to Wikipedia.Resnjari (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari: actually, the Prespa Agreement acknowledges the right of the Macedonians to their self-determination, and does not interfere to it. The only thing which the Prespa Agreement does in relation to self-determination and language name, is to add a clarification that they belong to the Slavic groups of people/families of languages and have no whatsoever relation with the Ancient Greek Kingdom and language. Thats all. So, there is no really any need for the change of expression here in Wikipedia regarding the ethnic group and their language: they will still be Macedonians and their language Macedonian, except for these articles where there is also mention of other Macedonian groups, such as Greek Macedonians. In that case, the common practice will still be continued, which is to add a clarification (e.g. Ethnic Macedonians, Greek Macedonians) to avoid causing the readers any semiological confusions. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm in favour of reaffirming that for any updates of MOSMAC regarding ethnic Macedonian identity and their language in light of the Prespa agreement. Its to prevent POV pushers and denialists who argue the contrary etc from restarting edit wars on many articles (as was done in the 2000s) on 'patriotic', nationalist and racist grounds in Wikipedia.Resnjari (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I see your point. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 13:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
As a member of Football wikiproject, it really not fun if people argue it was North Macedonian footballer or Macedonian footballer in lede, it definitely need to renew the MoS. Matthew hk (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment.Resnjari (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move: Wikipedia was terrible all these years and now proves it once more. FYROM was the official name and Wikipedia accepted fully FYROM thesis on name rejecting every logical Greek argument calling us nationalists. There was no way to avoid using Republic of Macedonia everywhere according to WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2 guidlines. Now FYROM changed its name to north Macedonia and we still discussing if we move it or not. Even if Greece didn’t ratified the agreement FYROM has new constitutional name. There is no need to wait NATO, EU, Greece or any other third party to accept it. All these years the argument was that Republic of Macedonia is what they call themselves. So good job Wikipedia keep the provocative-for-Greeks-name as long as possible.Vagr7 (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not "terrible" because we accept the constitutional names of all countries. You will notice we also use the name Greece rather than FOVOG (Former Ottoman Vilayet of Greece)... If keeping the name provokes some racists then all the better, but that is not the motive. As has been made very clear in the discussion, the change takes place on February 8th, meaning that we of course should not move the page before per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Jeppiz (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vagr7: as a Greek myself, I disagree with your opinion that "Wikipedia is terrible" because it is not. And I don't understand why you want the country's name to change BEFORE it is actually changed. Haven't you read when the Name Change will take place officially? By 8 February 2019, when the Republic of Macedonia's authorities sent a letter to the United Nations and its 195 member states across the world, announcing that their new name will be Republic of North Macedonia from that day and on. Only then we can update the article name to reflect the new developments! Ratification by Greek Parliament did not bring the Prespa Agreement into full force. If you are Greek, please read this: "North Macedonia by 8 February: the next steps of the Prespa Agreement" --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with SilentResident. If anything I think Wikipedia's stance shows why this agreement is important. With the interim accord the whole world recognised it as Macedonia and this is simply reflected on Wikipedia. There is an argument to be made that Wikipedia facilitated this by de facto recognising it as Macedonia (although Wikipedia itself did not take a stance, it merely reflects the most widely used name), but there really is no need to have this discussion now. The general hysteria in Greece and North Macedonia will die out eventually and we can move on, but there is no need to rush to implement the name change before it has officially happened. I think the push is linked to what is happening in Greece right now where every 5 minutes we get a new news alert that X or Y person referred to North Macedonia simply as Macedonia, without mentioning that the name-change process has not officially been concluded yet. Good things to those who wait. --Michail (blah) 12:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the push is linked to what is happening in Greece right now where every 5 minutes we get a new news alert that X or Y person referred to North Macedonia simply as Macedonia, without mentioning that the name-change process has not officially been concluded yet. Good things to those who wait. This. Certain Greek media do this. So far, the newspapers "Kathimerini" and "Eleutheros Typos", and rightist "New Democracy" party are the ones complaining mostly about Zaev still calling his country simply "Macedonia" after Greek Parliament's ratification. These media and the party, are either populists, either ignorant, or both. And for this reason, I stopped taking them seriously. They crashed at the bottom of my esteem after the latest developments. Lately I am considering boycotting Kathimerini from being used as Reliable Source in Wikipedia's articles. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 13:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that the 8th of February date is only a rough estimate of when the procedure is expected to finish. I heard yesterday on Greece's national TV that the procedure will finish on the 10th of February. So for the time being the exact date is not certain Weatherextremes (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Weatherextremes: 6, 8, or 10 February, does it really matter? It is just a rough estimate and the dates are irrelevant. That's why sources say "By 8 February" and not "On 8 February". The Article name will be updated when right time comes. No need to rush it. But in mean time we can benefit from this waiting period, and open a discussion on Wikipedia matters relating to name change. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move Let's wait until the actual name change is implemented in February 2019.Jurryaany (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: I am afraid there are 2 issues with what you said: first of all, Wikipedia has most of its country articles using WP:COMMONNAME instead of WP:OFFICIALNAME for these countries because their shortnames (e.g. Greece instead of Hellenic Republic, China instead of People's Republic of China, and more) are distinctive enough to avoid semiological confusion among readers. However, the Republic of Macedonia's case is an exception to this rule due to sharing the same name with other geographical/political/historical entities (e.g. Macedonia (country) and Macedonia (region) or Macedonia (kingdom)) and for this, Wikipedia chose to use the official name "Republic of Macedonia" instead of the country's WP:COMMONNAME "Macedonia". Secondly, there are ongoing developments relating to the Prespa Agreement, which will have the Republic of Macedonia's constitutional name changed into "Republic of North Macedonia". IMO, past this point, there will be no point to keep calling the country with an official name that isn't its official one anymore. If the official name of the country is changed, Wikipedia will have to be updated to reflect on these developments. However, the old official name Republic of Macedonia won't disappear; it will still be mentioned in the relevant articles, to inform the readers about the country's history and past names. But I do NOT think it is necessary for Wikipedia to keep "Republic of" in the new name for that country (Republic of North Macedonia) to distinguish it from other Macedonias, since the short term "North" is more than enough for this. It is safe to say that the "Republic of" can be dropped without causing any semiological confusion among the readers. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 15:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you, but that is a case for moving the article to the more common name of Macedonia (country), not the less common name of North Macedonia. —  AjaxSmack  16:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: I don't understand how "Republic of Macedonia" will be WP:COMMONNAME after the implementation has finished - the agreement itself explicitely states that "Republic of Macedonia" will no longer be used to describe the state. The common name could be Macedonia (even though the deal itself forbids North Macedonia to refer to itself as simply Macedonia), but even then the process which saw the present title moved to Republic of Macedonia as opposed to just Macedonia would see the page moved to North Macedonia, even if the article begins with "Macedonia, officially the Republic of North Macedonia". --Michail (blah) 15:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't predict anything because I don't have a crystal ball. All I'm asking is to follow policy, i.e. follow what reliable sources use. I understand that my opinion is unpopular, and based on the consensus so far, I think the article can be moved summarily (i.e. without another RM request) on or around February 8. However, I did want to register my objection to ignoring policy. —  AjaxSmack  16:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: I do understand your objection to moving it prematurely. I do not understand your objection to moving it to North Macedonia. Per WP:NCMAC, the page title for the country is the country's official name. Unless WP:NCMAC is revisited in its entirety, moving it to North Macedonia is the only logical thing to do. It has nothing to do with crystal balling. It's simply a case of replacing the official name in accordance with WP:NCMAC. --Michail (blah) 01:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I have absolutely no objection to moving it to North Macedonia. My objection is to moving it today or at some predetermined date in the future. As User:Cinadon36 implores below, "Wait until mainstream media start using the term, which I believe won't take too long." I would merely substitute "reliable sources" for "mainstream media", but there's not a great deal of differennce in this case. —  AjaxSmack  23:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack:Wikipedia country entries are vital articles of Geography. Your examples about the two Koreas and Taiwan Vs China are just wrong. Both Koreas claim the whole peninsula in their official name, but in terms of geography they occupy the north and south part respectively. Same for Taiwan that could never be classified as “China”. East Timor is in fact east Timor. We also commonly refer to the USA as America , but to avoid confusion with the continent America, we use the official name of the country. Wikipedia must provide accurate and up-to-date geographical information and not create confusions. Keeping the same entry “Macedonia” or “the Republic of Macedonia” for the soon to be Republic of North Macedonia: 1) Would not take a recent international treaty into account 2) Would provide inaccurate information regarding the official name and its accepted alternative short form (Republic of North Macedonia and North Macedonia) 3) create confusion with the wider geographical region of Macedonia and the historical region of Macedonia as well. [Shelop]
"Soon to be" is not "accurate and up-to-date"', it's crystal ball gazing and against policy. Follow the sources. —  AjaxSmack  16:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
"soon to be" is accurate and up-to-date because it refers to a treaty that is subject to international law! [Shelop] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelop (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@AjaxSmack: As a citizen of North Macedonia and ethnic Macedonian (and former nationalist) I strongly disagree with your opinion. The Prespa Agreement is here for a reason, to clarify things - not create more confusions. My country will be known as North Macedonia worldwide and Wikipedia will reflect this, 'Republic of Macedonia' as a name will exist only in historical references and our memories. Cheers to a brighter future! Macedonicus (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
"My country will be known as..." Congratulations. We can move the article then. —  AjaxSmack  00:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Macedonicus: Round of applause brother. I am also all these things Macedonicus is as well! And I agree, nationalism should die already. That's the reason why I also need to disagree with you @AjaxSmack:. — Tom(T2ME) 17:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I am Greek and I am proudly standing with both fellow Greek editor Michail, and fellow Macedonian editors Macedonicus and Tom. Like how Macedonicus said, I do believe the Prespa Agreement is meant to acknowledge the realities in the region - and mutual compromises had to be made to reach it and break the never-ending cycle of nationalism: both sides of the dispute acknowledge with the Prespa Agreement that no side can monopolize the name - for example, Greece and Greek Macedonians acknowledge that they cannot deny the right of the Macedonians to their self-determination, and the Republic of Macedonia acknowledges that it cannot deny that there are other Macedonias in the region such as the Greek. Wikipedia already acknowledges these realities but now the involving sides starting acknowledging it, and is why it is so good to simply ignore.
Now that the Prespa agreement is a reality, it is only natural that Wikipedia reflects upon it - All we need now is to have the readers's convenience as our priority: update Wikipedia to reflect on developments around the world, and keep things here tidy. This is better than sticking on outdated naming policies and thus, causing even more semiological confusions. I am certain that ignoring the Prespa Agreement and keeping naming policies unchanged in Wikipedia with the pretext of WP:COMMONNAME is only bound to cause more problems besides semiological confusion: 1) inconsistency about which name is really the official one, (since everyone will be seeing that there are 2 countries bearing the same name: the Republic of North Macedonia in the real life, and the Republic of Macedonia in Wikipedia), and 2) disparance among newer and older editors who are stuck with new and old POVs respectively (which may possibly lead to edit wars and page move wars). The best way to avoid all these problems altogether is to simply update Wikipedia's content to reflect on the new reality, which, from the looks of it, everyone is acknowledging already. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
A minor issue, which I do not know if it was discussed above, is whether the new name must be North Macedonia or Republic of North Macedonia. or example, in English the term Czech Republic is used instead of Czechia but SLovakiais used instead of Slovak Republic. In this case I suspect this is relevant to the difficult creation of a single word for the land of the Czechs. I want to point out though, that the word Macedonia means many different things and different pages exist, each devoted to a specific use of Macedonia, so using just North Macedonia will be insufficient in my opinion. This is true for Greek readers. I do not know what would be more comprehensible for other languages.--Soccererer (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Both "North Macedonia" and "Republic of North Macedonia" are perfectly fine and free of issues that may affect Czechia or Slovakia. But a name that has fewer words in it is more convenient for the editors to use, so North Macedonia which only has 2 words is much more preferable than the 4-word Republic of North Macedonia. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 18:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no need for 'Republic of North Macedonia', simply 'North Macedonia' is fine. There is no other entity going by that name except the country/republic. I don't know why we are complicating things. — Tom(T2ME) 19:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
It just bad to use Czech and Slovak to compare with this RM. Why it is not Czechia , because it is not common name, why it is Slovakia, because it is common name. Just crystal ball on the common name was North Macedonia, Macedonia or else. Matthew hk (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you proposing that, should Macedonia be the most commonly-used name after the name change happens, that this article should be titled simply Macedonia? I understand the criticism of moving the article before the change takes effect, but moving it simply to Macedonia is a direct contradiction to WP:NCMAC. --Michail (blah) 01:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
It is WP:Crystal ball to guess the new common name of the country, which Macedonia or North Macedonia are possible. I already said above WP:NCMAC need to be renewed and this RM need to wait to avoid crystal ball. BTW, Republic of North Macedonia is unlikely as a common name, even it is official name. Since people and media call South Korea as Korea (which neither South and North Korea had the direction in their official name) If media still use Macedonia as the common name, then wiki user can still decide the new disambiguation affix for the country in the new WP:NCMAC, which North Macedonia or Macedonia (country) may be option. Matthew hk (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
If the common names are "Macedonia" and "North Macedonia", then I am afraid there isn't much of an option on which one to use: due to the naming dispute's nature, the first one cannot be used by Wikipedia even if it is still a common name, while the latter one helps resolve this dispute which caused so much damage to Wikipedia due to all these edit wars, and I am sure the editors will prefer to keep things clarified and in line with Prespa Agreement to avoid the semiological confusions of the past that have dragged this issue for so long, both inside Wikipedia as well as outside. We have had enough of these disputes. North Macedonia is our chance to have this finally settled once and for all. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 16:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
It still crystal ball to guess Republic of North Macedonia will be official or not, as only half of the legal and bureaucratical process had been done. Matthew hk (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to North Macedonia I am neutral on when the move takes place, but I hope that with Prespa, we have seen the last of the naming dispute and we can improve the article without the naming dispute overwhelming us. --Marianian(talk) 23:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move Move, since the agreement is official and confirmed by both countries. --GT3-RSwiki(talk) 02:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait with move to North Macedonia, but change intro sentence now. Yes, any move should not happen until the new name has come into effect (presumably after the NATO invitation.) But burying any mention of North Macedonia way at the bottom of the intro section (and paragraphs after detailed discussions of both Republic of Macedonia and FYROM in the meantime does not seem appropriate, either. It’s going to be North Macedonia; that’s way more important than the all-but-abolished FYROM construct. North Macedonia should be mentioned in some fashion no later than the second sentence. Otherwise, we look like we are somehow opposed to the agreed-upon name. —ThorstenNY (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @ThorstenNY: I agree with this in principle, but it might be helpful to workshop some proposed language for the change. It would only be needed for the next week or so, but in the meantime, this article is getting a lot of traffic. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future but it seems like the whole name-related issue with the Prespa Agreement is just a big farce. People in 'Macedonia' continue calling their country by that name and so do even the politicians who were the main protagonists of and signed the agreement in their public speeches. The main slogan in favour of the name-change referendum was 'Yes for European Macedonia' (not 'Yes for European North Macedonia'), the common name they use after the country's parliament concluded the constitutional changes on 11 January was the same and no change can be observed even after the same was done by the other side's parliament on 25 January (on the other hand, there is no serious change in Greece either but that's not equally relevant to the point). Those (in particular Macedonicus, Tomica, Michail and SilentResident) claiming that the main purpose of the Prespa Agreement is to lessen the nationalism in a part of the world where there is no division between mine and yours but everything is only mine are right but the reality is that nothing in the world in the 21st century can change the mind of 7,7 billion people to accept, for most of them, a longer name for a country in their colloqual language. Despite the use of 'North Macedonia' in the international relations (which in most cases until now was 'FYROM'), like it or not, the country's common name will probably remain simply 'Macedonia' (no crystall ball to say it 'surely' will but 'probably' describes reality) and its citizens will be logically called 'Macedonians' (nobody would seriously use after-the-slash clarification from Article 1 Section b of the agreement). This is not because people want to deny the Prespa Agreement but because they tend to rationalize their style so that it's safe for them to use 'Macedonia' for 'North Macedonia' when there is no other country-level name containing the term 'Macedonia'. How this affects WP:COMMONNAME is pretty clear and waiting for it to apply in this case might last infinetly long and the renaming of the article should outrightly be made according to WP:OFFICIALNAME.--Mastersource (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait For now this is WP:CRYSTAL. Assuming the stipulations are realized, and it also becomes the common name (see also: "Czechia", oh wait nobody says that), the time to move will be in the future. --Calthinus (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Calthinus: - Again, how is this WP:CRYSTAL? Per WP:NCMAC we use what the country calls itself for the name of this article. The country will no longer call itself 'Republic of Macedonia' once this is formally concluded. It will call itself 'Republic of North Macedonia', or 'North Macedonia' for short. People also colloquially call the Republic of Ireland simply Ireland, but the Republic is still on Republic of Ireland to avoid confusion. --Michail (blah) 12:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92: - It would be nice perhaps if Wikipedia's policy was to agree to current national governments' proposals but that is not what we do. And by the way on some issues that is a serious blessing -- as an editor active in the Israel/Palestine area I am especially grateful because otherwise we would have to mediate between different governments' naming policies. It would never end, let me tell you. Anyhow, that in mind, it's WP:CRYSTAL because our actual policy is to prefer what name in common use in the English language. When and if English speakers come to adopt "North Macedonia" to speak of this article's subject, then that is what Wikipedia will do. The Czech Republic has officially declared its name is "Czechia" not "the Czech Republic", but when speaking English, English speakers have not changed. Government agreements in one government versus the governments of two coming to an agreement (Greece, RoM) does not make a difference. Not even in the Czech Republic itself do English speakers call it Czechia in English [[7]]. The policy is clear.--Calthinus (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
In fact, we had to have a moratorium to stop further attempts to change the name of the Czech Republic to Czechia on Wikipedia. [[8]] --Calthinus (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Calthinus: I understand all that. All this move to North Macedonia would do is ensure that the article complies with NCMAC. Czechia is a bit of an unfortunate example. No one is arguing that it should be moved there because there is no need for disambiguation. There isn't a wider area called Czechia, and there isn't a 30-year dispute going on. A better example would be Ireland, which is listed not on Ireland but on Republic of Ireland. We already have Naming Conventions - Macedonia and as it stands we use what the country calls itself for the name of the article. We can reopen the discussion about whether NCMAC is relevant, but this is not the place to do this. The request to move this article is solely so that it complies with the spirit of NCMAC. It's not crystal balling to expect the article to be moved once the formalities are over. Both parliaments have approved it, and the country's official name will indeed be North Macedonia. Keeping it at Republic of Macedonia would contradict NCMAC. To quote the current rules we have in place: "Republic of Macedonia" is an acceptable disambiguator because it is also the self-identifying official (constitution) name. --Michail (blah) 13:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92: The debate is between "North Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia". My current vote is effectively a keep "Republic of Macedonia". I am not saying adopt simple "Macedonia" -- which seems to be what you're arguing against I think?--Calthinus (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Calthinus: No, I'm saying that since per the current NCMAC we use the official constitutional name, and since the official constitutional name has been changed, that is what this page should be called. Republic of Macedonia will be neither the official name, nor the common name. 'Macedonia' is currently the common name, not 'Republic of Macedonia'. Why would we keep 'Republic of Macedonia' as the name of the article if it is neither common nor official? I hope this clears it up. --Michail (blah) 14:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, yeah it does, and that's fair.--Calthinus (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92: Calthinus has a very strong point. We don't rely on how someone dares to call itself but what's the most common practice in the English language and that's what WP:COMMONNAME is about. Ukrainians decided to use 'Kyiv' as an official English translation for their capital but that wasn't accepted here and won't be in near future as overwhelmingly the most common name in the English language is 'Kiev'. On the other hand, the use of official names such like 'Republic of Macedonia' or 'Republic of North Macedonia' is stipulated in WP:OFFICIALNAME. I really don't know how did someone come up with 'North Macedonia' when it wasn't even discussed in the negotiations (the negotiated name was 'Republic of North Macedonia') and Macedonian policiticians, including those who signed the agreement, still insist on the use of 'Macedonia' in their public speeches (see my extensive comment above). The question here is whether to rename the article to 'Republic of North Macedonia' per WP:COMMONNAME or to 'Macedonia' per WP:OFFICIALNAME. Considering that the use of the name 'Macedonia' has been previously opposed by users contending that it has multiple meaning other than the country (in the same way as Republic of Ireland), it's very logical that we'll continue using an official name for this country, that is 'Republic of North Macedonia'. The name 'North Macedonia' does not qualify for now and it's a crystal-ball reasoning if it does one day in the future.--Mastersource (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
This conversation is slowly descending into the very definition of the word 'punctilio'. I think you misunderstand the discussion if you think it's a choice between North Macedonia and Macedonia. This violates NCMAC. It's a discussion between North Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia, the current and former constitutional names. Please read my last comment above. We can argue about when the move needs to happen (for the record I voted to wait until it actually formally happens), but to accuse people of crystal balling is a bit misleading. We are not discussing whether Macedonia will agree to rename itself North Macedonia - it has already done that. And it has changed its constitutional name. The 'move' side is arguing that since NCMAC uses the constitutional name for the article on the country, this article should reflect that. Starting a discussion that the article should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME is a whole other beast and not the topic of this discussion. --Michail (blah) 15:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92: It's a discussion between North Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia, the current and former constitutional names. This is what you wrote and here comes the main misunderstanding. The constitutional name was changed from 'Republic of Macedonia' to 'Republic of North Macedonia'. Comparing 'North Macedonia' to 'Republic of Macedonia' is like comparing apples and oranges. I don't say that the article should not be renamed but that 'North Macedonia', which is not its new official name as it's 'Republic of North Macedonia', is inappropriate and the right move should be to 'Republic of North Macedonia' because the article's name complies with WP:OFFICIALNAME rather than WP:COMMONNAME (another example is Republic of Ireland). If there is an argument that the Prespa Agreement was signed primarily to resolve disambiguation about the multiple meanings of the name 'Macedonia' and it opens a way for this article's name change from an official to a common name (like most of the country names), then there is clearly a haste and evident contextual misunderstanding since the agreement just stimulates 'North Macedonia' to become more common than 'Macedonia'. Once it happens, we can move the then-named article 'Republic of North Macedonia' to 'North Macedonia'. For the time being, renaming this directly to 'North Macedonia' would be a mistake as the most common name in the English language is still 'Macedonia'. Do you get the difference?--Mastersource (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mastersource:. You are mistaken. There is no such "official name" as "Republic of Ireland". The constitutional name of Ireland is, simply, "Ireland". There is no official "Republic of". The "Republic of" was added by Wikipedia for the simple expedience of distinguishing between "Ireland" (the country) and "Ireland" (the island. (You can refer to the looooooong discussion of said matter for background.) "Republic of" was added to Macedonia's name for the simple expedience of distinguishing "Macedonia" (modern) from "Macedonia" (ancient) and "Macedonia" (Greek region). With "North Macedonia" no such artificial or expedient remedy is required and "North Macedonia" is quite sufficient to distinguish the modern country from all other uses of "Macedonia". But the Irish example simply shows an artificial "Wikipedia-based" solution and not any sort of precedent that we must follow here. --Taivo (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: I apologize for being wrong about the constitutional name of Ireland but that doesn't drastically change my position here. 'North Macedonia' might be sufficient to make the disambiguation clearer but it's simply not the name negotiated in the agreement and still not more common than 'Macedonia', and that's why those contesting it in this discussion have a strong point. We all know that the naming dispute was about the disambiguation and many see the Prespa Agreement as a cure for that issue but it doesn't happen overnight. The crystal-ball argument does also hold since we don't know if 'North Macedonia' prevails as more common name over 'Macedonia' in the English language. This might happen in near future but might not and that's why 'Republic of North Macedonia' could be a temporary choice before 'North Macedonia' fully replaces 'Macedonia' in its common usage. After all, the whole care is very sensitive because it might open many similar naming issues elsewhere on the English Wikipedia. For me personally, it doesn't change too much how the article will be renamed ('Republic of North Macedonia' or 'North Macedonia'). My main concern is that this might evolve in endless discussions on other articles. (You don't need to answer back as our lines are clear. I have other more important stuff to do and hope that will save your time as well.)--Mastersource (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mastersource: 'North Macedonia' might be sufficient to make the disambiguation clearer but it's simply not the name negotiated in the agreement - actually article 1.3a of the Agreement states that the official name of the country is Republic of North Macedonia and the short official name is North Macedonia. --Michail (blah) 17:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: well said! :-) --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 16:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move as per WP:OFFICIALNAME. The Greek and the North Macedonian parliaments voted in favour, the Greek one ratified the agreement, we are on to the NATO acceptance process. Also, the "Macedonia" should not appear as a per WP:COMMONNAME because firstly, beats the purpose and secondly since the name is similar to e.g. South Africa, none call this country just Africa. This argument is just invalid. Othon I (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
You quoted official name and common name wiki policy, but your reasoning are opposing the policy your quoted. Please see also Wikipedia:Article titles. Matthew hk (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying to not use a common name. All I am saying is that if we leave the common name as "Macedonia" it beats the purpose of the Prespa Agreement. The name "North Macedonia" which is the official from now on should be enough. Othon I (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
"Beats the purpose" is a red herring. Whose "purpose"? Whatever purposes the Greek and Macedonian governments had in making that agreement is quite irrelevant to us on Wikipedia. Our purpose here is to write an encyclopedia that reflects the facts out in the real world and the way our reliable sources speak about those facts, and if they should continue to use plain "M." in practice, then that would remain our "common name" for Wikipedia purposes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for official change name & a comprehensive RfC per ARBMAC 2 Motion of 17 June, and only then move to North Macedonia. First of all, the country's constitutional name has not yet changed. According to the recent constitutional changes in Skopje, the latter will be activated only after the ratification of the country's NATO accession protocol by the Greek parliament. Therefore, the Prespa Agreement is not yet in force, and the country's constitutional name (Republic of Macedonia) has not yet changed. This has been confirmed today by a statement of the Greek Alternate Foreign Minister, Giorgos Katrougkalos, to a Greek radio station; he stated verbatim that the provisions of the Prespa Agreement are not yet activated (answering to a journalist's question why Zaev continues to call his country "Macedonia" and not "North Macedonia"). Secondly, I am not 100% sure that the current procedure is in full accord with ARBMAC 2 Motion of 17 June. From a practical point of view, I believe that the Motion in question has a particular wisdom that should not be ignored: from my past experience (being inter allia the party who initiated ARBMAC 2), I have concluded that on this topic even the most uncontroversial issues somehow become controversial (does this RfC look, until now, consensual and uncontroversial?!). I thus believe that the RfC desicion which will be taken should be as comprehensive and as well crafted as possible. There is no reason to hurry; the new reality will be imprinted in Wikipedia, but this should be done in a way guaranteeing that there will be no fragmentary and contradicting decisions. Let's at least once, on this topic, do the things without a hurry and in a proper way.Yannismarou (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi all, to those who remember me. I was also a party in the marathon discussion that lead to ARBMAC 2 current naming conventions so I guess this is our #10yearchallenge. So believe me when I say that moving any article should not be taken lightly. At least now there is discussion and not an out of the blue forced admin action. Make no mistake, the internet is not as it was 10 years ago and the world is also waiting for Wikipedia to choose for them!. Some in Greece are already preempting this move [9] Shadowmorph ^"^ 15:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Wait (not too long), then move. To the matter at hand I think common sense dictates to move, after the dust settles, to North Macedonia if there is consensus on that. North Macedonia is preferable to Republic of North Macedonia as per WP:PRECISE. Macedonia (country) is the only other alternative in my view, but I fail to see how it would gather support if it didn't the last time. I recall that it was considered bad form. My "not too long" clause pertains to the reasons found in the essay WP:NOW. Searching the policies I saw in WP:NAMECHANGES that we should look with some sensibility at reliable sources after the change and what wordings would they choose. However, browsing the news, I saw a hesitation to accept the name change as de facto and most news outlets use the term "North Macedonia" not as a current name but as a future one, while seemingly uttering: "Wait, is this for real?". TLDR, all I say is things could still go ...south! Shadowmorph ^"^ 15:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. WP:MODERNPLACENAME could also aply: For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Shadowmorph ^"^ 15:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait then move to North Macedonia. Per various comments above. "North Macedonia" because the name is unique and "Republic of" therefore becomes unnecessary. --Taivo (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until the NATO protocol is ratified and then move to Republic of North Macedonia. The country has changed its constitutional name from 'Republic of Macedonia' to 'Republic of North Macedonia', while the Prespa Agreement doesn't automatically make 'North Macedonia' a more common name than 'Macedonia' but paves the way for it to happen in near future. Once 'North Macedonia' tips the scales, the article can no longer be compliant to WP:OFFICIALNAME and the title can move under WP:COMMONNAME from 'Republic of North Macedonia' to 'North Macedonia'. Moving directly to 'North Macedonia' would be a big mistake because it's neither an official and common name (see my preceding comments above for more extensive explanation).--Mastersource (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until mainstream media start using the term, which I believe won't take too long. Euronews has started using the term already [10].Cinadon36 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Macedonia. It seems this page will be moving to "North Macedonia" within the next few weeks which is understandable, but I do believe that this article should have been "Macedonia" all along and should be under that name until the common name becomes "North Macedonia", if ever. We weren't bound by the UN provisional reference here so I don't see why we immediately act on the Prespa Agreement passing. --Local hero talk 17:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I concur with you, but geopolitics of a silly name dispute resulted in a name change. My preference would be a plain Macedonia or the current name Republic of Macedonia. People in the country itself don't refer to the place as "North Macedonia". Its highly doubtful it will be adopted in common speech by ethnic Macedonians or even Albanians, which in Albanian the new name is a longer form due to phonetic rules i.e Maqedonia e Veriut, yet alone Republika e Maqedonisë së Veriut. Makedonija and Maqedonia will still be what the place is called in the country by both ethnic Macedonians and Albanians regardless of these new formalities.Resnjari (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Right, but more importantly the common name in English is Macedonia. It may some day become "North Macedonia". But only when that occurs should this article move to "North Macedonia". I think everyone is eager for this dispute to be over, but I firmly believe Wikipedia policy favors having this article be titled simply "Macedonia" - now and for the foreseeable future. So that's my apparently dissenting opinion. --Local hero talk 21:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but this time people will say both countries signed an agreement. Macedonia without any qualifiers is the sane choice, but as you know the ugliness of the issue has generated an energy of many of those who are against that formula due to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS reasons based on 'patriotic', nationalist and racist grounds that deny ethnic Macedonian identity, language and statehood existence. The best one can do is probably delay it being changed on Wikipedia until proper formalities of recognition are done at the UN etc around mid year.Resnjari (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait then move to North Macedonia when the Republic of Macedonia is officially recognized as Northern Macedonia. Currently the UN lists the country as FYR Macedonia, and Macedonian government websites[11] still use the name 'Republic of Macedonia'. Until the UN or any other supranational body uses the name officially, the page should remain as it is. DanielEnnisTV ✉ 19:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In principle I'd say to move to North Macedonia once the paperwork is all complete and the new name is being used.
But I have process concerns. And on a topic of this historic sensitivity I think process is important.
The normal expectation is that the move of an article on a country would have knock-on effects on hundreds of articles that refer to that country, whose text would change to reflect the new name of the article. It makes sense, and is good for Wikipedia, if these sorts of discussions are held in a single place or a small number of places, rather than being argued from first principles on every article independently. But since Arbcom has mandated a process with a 30-day RFC and 3 admin closers, and this discussion does not meet that standard, I would wonder what our position would be if and when editors propagate the change to other articles.
As such, if the close here is that the article is to be moved, then I think it's important that the closer should be absolutely clear on the scope of the decision, specifically considering whether editors on other articles are allowed to break the current (and explicitly binding) text of WP:MOSMAC to replace the names "Republic of Macedonia" and "Macedonia" with "North Macedonia".
But it would be better IMO for us to either push as soon as reasonable and practical to an RFC of the style mandated by Arbcom last June, or to establish (with Arbcom's consent as required) that such an RFC is no longer necessary. Kahastok talk 19:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Well said Kahastok! There is also a few other issues about the usage of North Macedonian in terms of citizenship vs Macedonian in terms of ethnicity for articles about biographies of people + the name of language etc which the Prespa agreement also touched upon. Do we reaffirm the current guidelines for MOSMAC on these kinds of things or do we update them. If its an update how would we reflect the Prespa agreement on these issues in proper way on Wikipedia etc. I feel that editors are not discussing these things and they will be left as an open question in future. I really think we should have a discussion open for updating MOSMAC as a whole instead of focusing on just the name etc. Otherwise every little thing will be contested on many articles which have the potential for endless edit wars.Resnjari (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we definitely still need that more comprehensive RfC, and I agree with Kahastok that we should soon get it started. Another open issue, in addition to those Resnjari hinted at, is to what extent and in what contexts we'll continue to use the old name historically, i.e. when speaking of events between 1992 and 2019. I suppose Kiro Gligorov will continue to have been "president of Macedonia", not "president of North Macedonia". What about a person born in the country in 1995, would they be "born in Bitola, Macedonia", "born in Bitola, North Macedonia", "born in Bitola, in what is now the soon-to-be former Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", or what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari: You should have read the Prespa Agreement which resolves this "silly" (as you called it) naming dispute, it doesn't hurt. As you will find out by reading the Agreement and its provisions, that only the aspects regarding official state names, state citizenship and state demonyms, education and diplomatic relations/cooperation framework are configured by it. With simple words: Macedonian Language stays Macedonian Language, Macedonian identity stays Macedonian identity and Macedonian people stay Macedonian people. That's all.
And I will repeat here that the Prespa Agreement's purpose isn't to configure the language and identity, but to recognize the people's right to self-determination and acknowledge what Wikipedia has done already for a long time now: that in the geographical region of Macedonia, exist multiple Macedonias, multiple Macedonian groups of different backgrounds and ethnicities, histories and cultures.
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I am afraid we can not change names for the 1991-2019 period. Republic of Macedonia will have to be used for that time period, not Republic of North Macedonia, provided that we mention it in a historical context (e.g. "In 1991, the Republic of Macedonia formed diplomatic relations with Bulgaria". But when we refer to its past from a modern scope, then sure, the new name is better to use. An example: "The Republic of North Macedonia, maintains its diplomatic relations with Bulgaria since their establishment in 1991". --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 20:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly why we need to discuss updates to MOSMAC via an RfC to either reaffirm currant wiki usage or update guidelines. Otherwise little flareups can have the potential for endless edit warring on articles. Another concern i have is when citizenship + ethnicity is used in certain contexts side by side. i.e so and so person is a North Macedonian Macedonian. Would we need a second use of Macedonian or do we scrap North in such contexts for Wikipedia. It’s things like this that need to be worked out so editors don't get themselves into strife or that edit wars don't happen and waste the time of administers in policing Balkan articles.Resnjari (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
i.e so and so person is a North Macedonian Macedonian A person can be a "Macedonian of North Macedonia", or "North Macedonia's Macedonian", in the same way we would say an "Albanian of North Macedonia", or "North Macedonia's Albanian". It isn't as complicated as you may think. Both are valid terms since the Prespa Agreement and the constitutional amendments state that the citizens can be called Macedonians of North Macedonia or Citizens of North Macedonia. The ethnic demonyms however remain unchanged for the ethnic groups living there: just "Albanian" for Albanian people and "Macedonian" for Macedonian people. EDIT: oh, and the citizenship part is where a discussion can be useful, as the media appear to have reported that the Prespa's definition of "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" can apply to both Macedonians and Albanians and would not imply in any way that the Albanians are not Albanian, as it is used in the sense of citizenship, and thus, when saying "Macedonian" (citizen), to mean both the Macedonians (ethnic group) and the Albanians. What a headache. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻  (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 21:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that the issue of using the terms for citizenship/ethnicity side by side could be resolved in a similar way to the use of the terms "Bosnian"/"Bosniak", where the first term refers to citizenship and the second to ethnicity. I think that the respective terms should be "Macedonian"/"Macedonian (ethnic)". I know that the comparison is not perfect, since the case now is that the 2 terms are actually identical, but it can be used as a rough guide. So we don't ever say "Bosnian Bosniaks", but we do use the terms Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats, where the "Bosnian" part refers to citizenship obviously. In the same sense we can use the terms Macedonian Albanians or Macedonian Turks, but "Macedonian Macedonians (ethnic)" wouldn't make sense, would it? On the other hand we should make sure to use the "Macedonian (ethnic)" in every case that the term clearly represents ethnicity, similarly to the term "Bosniak". I know, it sounds like a headache, but after all it doesn't change a lot on the terms that are used to describe the people. Argean (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I also agree that the Prespa Agreement is a guide and as such MOSMAC will need an update so as to leave no ambiguities. In regards to terminology on ethnic groups, i,e Macedonian Albanian(s) is acceptable for Albanians, but North Macedonian Albanian(s) is not. During negotiations in the Macedonian parliament for the name change Albanian parties argued for the term Macedonian to also be interpretated in terms of citizenship for non ethnic Macedonian communities (with no geographic qualifiers of "north", just Macedonian). It was a concession that Zaev agreed to that secured Albanian votes that allowed the name change to pass. Any attempts to have North Macedonian Albanian(s) as a formula for use in wiki is POV and i strongly oppose it and possibly others who edit Albanian related topics may hold the same view. The form Albanians of North Macedonia would depend on the context. Its why i keep saying that MOSMAC needs to be updated via consensus before any hasty changes are made.Resnjari (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
100% agree on updating MOSMAC. And yes "North Macedonian Albanians" is obviously not acceptable because there is no nationality term "North Macedonian". "Albanians of North Macedonia" on the other hand is probably acceptable and valid according the agreement that defines the term "Macedonia/citizen of North Macedonia" as the accepted term for nationality. A good analogy with the "Bosnian" paradigm would be the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina that is used interchangeably with Bosnian Serbs. Argean (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Move The country now calls itself New Macedonia. I think we need to move this as it is its new name. Felicia (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Opinion We should move Macedonian cuisine too. --Koreyak (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move Let's try to stick to the facts. Honestly the answers for every single question that I read above can be found in Prespa agreement itself. First of all, the agreement has been officially ratified by both parties but hasn't officially entered into force yet. It will eventually when the government of the Republic of Macedonia acknowledges that the Greek government has notified them of completing all the steps that are necessary for the ratification. This should happen within 2 weeks after the ratification itself, so de facto the name of the country will inevitably change very soon. Obviously waiting for this is only a typicality, but let's wait just in order to avoid any misunderstandings. After the agreement comes into force, obviously there is no other choice than to move the article to North Macedonia, since according to the agreement itself all the currently used terms including "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia", "FYR Macedonia", "FYROM", will "cease to be used to refer to the Second Party in any official context". Obviously there is no reason to rename the article to the "Republic of North Macedonia", because "North Macedonia" will be the official short name of the country and it doesn't cause any ambiguity as the current short name does. I don't get the comparisons to the "Czech Republic"/"Czechia" issue because they never changed their constitutional name, they just decided to officially adopt a short name for the country, since they never had one before, but the use of this short name has never become popular, at least until now. I would rather draw more comparisons to the "Swaziland"/"Eswatini" case, where both the constitutional and the short form of the country name changed. I guess many people still use the old name when referring to the country, but the change of the Wikipedia article was inevitable. Another issue that is pretty well clarified is the name of the people of the country, which shall stay the same: "Macedonians" as well as anything that relates to people and their culture. Only the names of the public entities and institutions of the countries will change: so it's the "North Macedonian Parliament", but the "Macedonian cuisine", the "North Macedonian President" but the "Macedonian alphabet" and so on. Even the name of the national football team should change to "North Macedonia national football team", since I expect that the football federation will change name too, but a football player can still be "Macedonian". I do expect many disputes over many articles over the next months, but I think the agreement itself provides a very good guide on how to handle them. Argean (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: Just as expected (and as I informed everyone earlier in this RfC): On 28 January 2019, the NATO's 29 permanent representatives signed the North Macedonia's NATO Accession Protocol at Brussels, and it will now be sent to the 29 capitals of the NATO member states for ratification by their national Parliaments. Once this is done in Athens, the Republic of Macedonia will inform the international community and all UN member states that the Prespa Agreement goes into full force and the country's new name will be North Macedonia. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 01:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Move to North Macedonia and let's get it over with. This agreement is a done deal now. This is the new name.--APG1984 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move. Ditto. This is actually important. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per policy. What's the rush? Paul August ☎ 19:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Per 👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 post, wait until Greek parliament ratifies the accession protocol to NATO when Prespa Agreement comes to full force. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per similar comments above. While the agreement has been ratified in both countries, is not been implemented yet by either. See also this indepth article about exactly this issue. Lordtobi (✉) 21:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for the name change to actually take effect before making any decisions. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move. If Wikipedia cared about international law, this article would have never been about Macedonia, but FYROM. The excuse was that wiki follows what people decide to call themselves. The country is still called internationally as FYROM, but they voted and changed their constitution to North Macedonia, so what are you waiting for? Even is the whole deal goes south ... the name Macedonia will not be used again, as everyone will choose FYROM for a stable, non internal politics solution, as the UN voted 30 years ago. Wiki people, in politics, inaction is an action. Think about the action you are taking now with Wait. To satisfy every little corner, including internal constitutional courts and security council veto, it will take years to be able to say 100% that this is done. But you don't have to wait for that. You can listen to the constitution of the country or the UN. If in doubt, change the name now to Republic of Macedonia / Republic of North Macedonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.252.121 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait As has been noted by many above, the formal renaming has not yet occurred. As evidenced by letterheads on the country′s official websites: https://www.vlada.mk/ http://www.pretsedatel.mk/ Axxxion (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait and move per above. About time we put this one to rest. Húsönd 18:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move I think it is time to change the name now. Both countries recognise it. Also either we are Greek, Macedonian, Anti- or pro- watever, the current name, even if it was the fruit of a necessary consensus, is not good either as it is a source of contention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeryion (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ancient Kingdom of Macedonia

Hey fellow users, do you think we can remove NOW all the references to ancient Macedonia and Alexander the Great? I mean according to the Prespa Agreement (Article 7) the second Party (FYROM) acknowledged the fact that the country has nothing to do with the ancient greek kingdom of Macedonia. I believe it is unnecessary to wait until the Agreement comes into effect. Naturally we must wait for the name change until the Ratification of NATO Accession Protocol comes into effect. But all the other elements of the Agreement (for example : the clarification of the historical context of the word Macedonia) can be included in the page because FYROM has already made steps towards this issue.( renaming of the International airport of Skopje and the main Highway ) 

Engelleip96 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Engelleip96 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

From what I see in the article, the references you talk about are in the Ancient and Roman Period history section. And are both sourced and objective.
"In 356 BC Philip II of Macedon absorbed[41] the regions of Upper Macedonia (Lynkestis and Pelagonia) and the southern part of Paeonia (Deuriopus) into the kingdom of Macedon.[42] Philip's son Alexander the Great conquered the remainder of the region, and incorporated it in his empire, reaching as far north as Scupi, but the city and the surrounding area remained part of Dardania.[43]"
Why would we remove them? The Prespa Agreement does not change the history of the region. Dante 80 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Dante 80, the Prespa Agreement might not change the history of the region but it distinguishes clearly the history of each country by acknowledging the usage of the word Macedonia. Geographically speaking you are right but when it comes to the readers who read the page , there is a connection of the history of the ancient greek Kingdom of Macedonia with the present state of FYROM. It's an issue of huge importance for both sides (especially the Greeks) and its maybe more important than the name change of FYROM. Maybe we can not delete the entire section of the Ancient and Roman period but we can include one or two sentences where there is a clarification of the then ancient Macedonia and the present state of FYROM. (Also about the discussion above about the demonym , i believe we can write one and only demonym and that is clearly written in the Agreement --- Macedonian / citizen of North Macedonia) Engelleip96 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The agreement makes a distinction, namely that Macedonia and Macedonia are not the same. Nowhere in the article does it say that they are. The article only points out that ancient Macedonia at some point expanded into the region which is now the Republic of Macedonia. Removing references that this happened is nothing short of historical revisionism. The Greekness of ancient Macedon is pretty blatantly obvious if one were to visit the relevant articles. --Michail (blah) 19:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Michail i agree with you on everything you just wrote. As you have correctly written IF ONE WERE TO VISIT THE RELEVANT ARTICLES , then the reader can understand the historical difference of Macedonia in Greece and FYROM. But we are talking about the article Republic of Macedonia! Why can't we include a sentence or two that clarify the difference? Yes the article does not imply that there is a connection between both Macedonias. But it does not confirm it either. Engelleip96 (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • i mean confirm the non connection of both Macedonias

Engelleip96 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

National anthem

When Macedonia become North Macedonia, what happens to the national anthem Denes nad Makedonija/Today Over Macedonia and its lyrics? --2001:999:20:56E0:95AC:C60B:22BC:3F6B (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:crystal ball. Some user may dig out article about the national anthem, but we did not know the government will/had change the national anthem or not. Matthew hk (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The national anthlem will not be changed. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The demonym should be definitely just North Macedonian/s, why?, because they demonym describe from where is one person, and if someone is from North Macedonia, he/she is North Macedonian, regerdless of his/her ethncity. I said before that should be and second demonym just as in the case of North Korea, but I forget that to North Korea there is a second demonym because the officialy name of North Korea is not North Korea but Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so, because there is a second demonym Korean, but in the case of North Macedonia the situation is clear, the one and only and official name is North Macedonia and the demonym should be just North Macedonian/s.

Here are and sources about my claim.

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-names-of-nationalities-4088817 Contrast demonym, the natives or inhabitants of a particular place, with ethnonym, which refers to people of a particular ethnic group.

The demonyms of the countries with geographical name:

For Korea, North the demonym is North Korean

For Korea, South the demonym is South Korean

For South Africa the demonym is South African

http://wanderlustandlipstick.com/wandertips/language/demonyms-around-the-world/ A “demonym” is the name for the people from a certain place. For example, those who hail from America are Americans. A person from Bali? Balinese. When you are wondering whether to call someone who hails from Michigan a Michigander or a Michiganian, you are contemplating which demonym to use. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. North Macedonian refers to all the citizens and the demonym. Macedonian refers to the main ethnic group. I also believe that there should be a page for North Macedonians as a whole. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko1999:, @Xylo kai Gyali: this thread is about national anthem not demonym, please reply in the right thread. (may be #First demonym: North Macedonian/s, second demonym: Macedonian/s ?? ) Matthew hk (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

8 February 2019 is the day...

...at least according to U.S. government-funded VOA News, which cites the Speaker of the Hellenic Parliament as saying Greece will vote on ratification of the NATO accession protocol for (North) Macedonia this Friday: VOA News. As previously discussed, WP:RS indicate the name change will become official after that. So per the results of the above move discussion, I would suggest we keep an eye out Friday to see if secondary sources begin referring to the country as North Macedonia at that time. There may still be additional procedural hurdles to clear; that being said, once the name is officially changed, it will no longer be permissible under WP:MOSMAC to refer to the country by a proper name that is not operative. In other words: WP:CONSENSUS permitting, we should move this article to North Macedonia either upon confirmation that the name of the country is officially no longer "Republic of Macedonia" or upon determination that a proliferation of reliable secondary sources now refer to the country as North Macedonia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Friday the 8th of February is indeed the day that the Hellenic Parliament will vote on the NATO accession protocol and this is reported by all Greek media, including the Athens/Macedonia News Agency (which is the Greek public NA). I expect that soon after the ratification, the Government of the Republic of Macedonia (or both governments, I'm not sure) will issue a statement that the Prespa agreement enters officially into force changing the name of the country to the "Republic of North Macedonia" and requesting by all governments and international organizations to be recognized with the new name. This is the expected procedure as outlined in the agreement itself. I believe that we should expect this statement, either on Friday or at latest early next week (there is a typical detail that the Greek Government should officially notify the other government that it has fulfilled all the obligations that have been agreed between the two parts, but I expect this to happen rather quickly). So I think we should keep an eye at the government website for that statement and this should suffice to get the page renamed rather immediately. It is still evident though that WP:MOSMAC needs to be updated according to the provisions that have been agreed upon in the agreement and my opinion is that the discussion on the update should start as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and edit warring. --Argean (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Argean. I think we should wait at least until the day the Republic of North Macedonia informs the UN and all of its members. Actually according to the Prespa Agreement the ratification of the NATO Accession Protocol of NM constitutes the de facto implementation of the Agreement. That means all States CAN call Macedonia as North Macedonia if they want.The de jure implementation of the Agreement starts with the announcement of name change from Macedonia to the UN and all of its members.That means all States and other multinational orgs MUST call the State as North Macedonia. Engelleip96 (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Official UN names are listed hereChrzwzcz (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I confirm the above information. According to the news: [12] 8 February Greece indeed ratifies it. However, constitutional changes for the name change go into force in 15 February, and North Macedonia will open an Embassy at Athens and a Consulate in Thessaloniki, while Greece will open an Embassy at Skopje and a Consulate at Bitola (until now the two states never maintained diplomatic relations on ambassadorial level, only at liaison office level). --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Interesting. The source (which is in Greek) that you linked also claims that the spokesperson of the government of the Republic of Macedonia has stated that the name will be officially in use from February 15, and this seems to be the original source of this report. I don't know if we should wait for that date though, because I expect that both governments should acknowledge on Friday that the agreement enters into force, at least de facto. --Argean (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
All what I can do is wait and see. I will report back if this is the case :-) --✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia/Archive_23&oldid=1143725111"