Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles/Archive 1

message: Unless there is significant reason to think someone will consider the term "Macedonia" to refer to ancient Macedonia, or the current Greek region of Macedonia, then the use should not include "Republic of".  The only reason we have "Republic of China" is because there's another country named China.
There really are relatively few instances where "Republic of Macedonia" is actually needed to disambiguate the country from the region.  The context of the use will make it almost certain what is meant in every instance.  If, for instance, an article contains a list of countries, or relates to international relations of countries, nobody will mistake Macedonia to mean the ancient or current Greek region of Macedonia.  Therefore, to use "Republic of" when it is not necessary is actually bowing to a Greek POV, and should not be allowed. Lexicon (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the reasoning and the parallel, Oz, but we are not exactly "bowing" when Greece specifically rejects "Republic of" as a means for disambiguation. Indeed, you and I may never be confused, but there are people out there who know zilt about all this. People who don't necessarily know that the ancient kingdom is dead. People that don't know there's a wider region by that name. People that don't even know Greece (let alone its province). Unlikely? Not quite, think of the readers of Eurovision for instance... IMO, we should probably help educate those, instead of confusing them. NikoSilver 00:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I disagree.  There really are few who will mistake the use of "Macedonia" in context.  Anyone who does, honestly, is far below average intelligence, or maybe has little knowledge of English, and would likely be confused by half of what they see on Wikipedia.  We have the simple English Wikipedia for those users.  We're not here to "educate" in the sense of informing people of near-common knowledge, we're here to serve as an encyclopedia to educate when people look something up.  We cannot design our policies around the few.  Lexicon (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could bet the majority of the readers have no clue on the different Macedonias, let alone on Macedonia (terminology). Many people having seen my contributions in Macedonia (terminology) have contacted me for a summary of what is the whole fuss about, and I don't consider them "below the average intelligence". I would drop names here, but it would almost seem like an insult, so I will refrain. NikoSilver 15:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: Summary: We should expand this convention to the other "Macedonias", to the "Macedonians", and to the "Macedonian" languages.
I applaud this initiative as a great means to stop silly and useless edit warring. I note with great attention the comments above, and  would like to set forth some additional issues, partly addressed by Fut.Perf. Our attention should be focused to Macedonia (terminology), and I would recommend that all future commentators here have a good knowledge of that featured article before expressing an opinion.
*First, and foremost, this page should be moved to Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) (without the "Republic of"), in order to be able to encompass the naming conventions for the other "Macedonias" [sic], that do not normally bear a disambiguating element (such as Macedonia (Greece) and Macedonia (region) which are plainly called "Macedonia" as well). Those other Macedonias should have a respective treatment, and should use the disambiguating elements when needed, in respective terms to the country. See Macedonia (terminology)#In geography and Macedonia (terminology)#In politics for more details.
*Second, we need to extend this to people. I would propose "Macedonian regioners" for all ethnic groups indiscriminately, "ethnic Macedonians" for the largest ethnic group of the country (65%), "Albanian Macedonians" for the second largest (25%), Macedonians (Greek) or Greek Macedonians for the Greeks, Piriners or Bulgarian Macedonians for the Bulgarians of Blagoevgrad province, Macedo-Romanians for the Aromanians/Vlachs of the region, and finally ancient Macedonians for the late ones (not recently :-)). See Macedonia (terminology)#In demographics, especially the table on the right. 
*Third we need to extend this to languages. Probably we could use "Macedonian branch of the South Slavic languages" (if not "Macedonian (Slavic)"), "Macedonian dialect of Greek" or "Macedonian (Greek)" for the modern Greek dialect, and "ancient Macedonian" for XMK. See Macedonia (terminology)#In linguistics, and Macedonia naming dispute#Macedonian language for details.
In short, those other Macedonia/n/s should always be disambiguated in the presence of any other, and should not be disambiguated in their own turfs. For the special case of the name of the country, we can use the present consensus, that uses the name of the international organization which refers to the country (which is the only WP:ATTributable option). NikoSilver 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do a draft; I did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is a draft. I was commenting here in order to start including it in the proposed convention. NikoSilver 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "other" Macedonias don't need a lot of extra rules - each of them has only that one name, "Macedonia", no alternatives to choose from, plus the obvious need to disambiguate when and where necessary - the latter is just a matter of commonsense, and most of the time it has successfully been handled by wikilinking. As for the people, "Macedonian regioners" and "Piriners" is out because it is not English. "Ethnic Macedonian" or "Slav Macedonian" works well when and where necessary for disambiguation. I don't think we've had much of a problem so far, so this looks like a solution in search of a problem to me. The languages don't need any disambiguation rules at all; in a 20th-century context (outside the narrow topic area of Greek dialectology) a sentence like "X spoke Macedonian" or "X was written in Macedonian" can only mean one thing. Clarification can be provided by means of wikilinking if so desired, which is most often done anyway, and if a user follows the links they will see the relevant articles plastered with all the disambiguation notices they could desire. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We didn't have much problem lately with the country name either. This proposed convention describes the apparent status quo. Is it all "a solution in search of a problem"? My view is we should describe all aspects regardless of the "problems" (which were often in all country, people and language articles, and we all know it). NikoSilver 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For the other suggestions, as I said, we only need to dab when there's a reason for confusion, so we agree. NikoSilver 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Yeah, I guess the one problem we really need to solve yet is how to stop the occasional bouts of deaustraloslavopristinification () and reaustraloslavopristinification () that we still get. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand 

message: Tonight is Eurovision night, one of the candidates is "F.Y.R. Macedonia". We wish it well. The presenter in the UK will introduce it as, 'the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'. Both these appelations are correct and in current use. Politis 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurovision F.Y.R. Macedonia

message: I do not think it is a good idea to use three different names for one state, depending on whether a a particular international organization is mentioned in an article or not. I would suggest a consistent use of "Republic of Macedonia" whenever an article refers to the country of that name. An explanatory footnote like the one in United Nations member states is obviously welcome in those few cases, where it adds some information value. Otherwise, three names would just confuse readers. Tankred 13:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, it is insane, but check the perfect dab to see why. NikoSilver 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Three names for the same entity?

message: This page served little purpose to begin with; it should not become a platform for nationalist self-pity. Wikipedia has too much of that to begin with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to hear that, thanks. If I extend my "same to you" will that be productive? Sit here and talk. Rationally, and without insults. I need you. NikoSilver 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice to hear; but what do you need me for?. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I need you to sort this out, and I know how to push your buttons so as to promote my nationalist agenda, so stay here. Come on Sept, I think you know me better than that. Just let's keep discussing and I'm sure we'll work it out. I responded to your comment in my talkpage. Take it from there. NikoSilver 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Very well, I give up