Talk:North Macedonian passport

Official name

The Official name is the The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, if I remember correctly...!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.230.233 (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the official name is the "Republic of Macedonia". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the information on this page about visa free entrey ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.122.204.58 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How can Macedonians get a passport to visit the United States?

I have been reading that Macedonias can get passport... But when I speak to my friend who lives in Skopje, Macedonia he tells me repeatedly that no matter what things say online that the citizens there are not able to get passports. Can anyone shed light on this or help me to get my Macedonian friend to the U.S. for a visit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jospehwisdom (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

На мапата не се точно обележани сите земји. Покрај Русија со истата боја треба да бидат обележани Украина, Азербејџан и Белорусија. Исто така островите кои се наоѓаат северно од Русија, а и припаѓаат на Русија не се обележани. Данска исто така припаѓа на шенген зоната и треба да биде обележана заедно со Фарските острови и Гренланд. Има уште неколку грешки кај земјите во Централна и Јужна Америка и некои од островите кои припаѓаат на Јапонија.

Имам направено мапа со сите горенаведени работи која исто така е во поголема резолуција, но незнам како да ја прикачам. Ако сакате поправете ги грешките или па објаснете ми како да ја прикачам. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tox em (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

people.. something is wrong with the page. macedonian citizens definitly CANNOT travel visafree in the EU or Canada. somebody mixed everything with the map and the country list

Macedonian Citizens with Biometric Passport can travel visa free in the Schengen Countries of the EU: Austria Germany Belgium Denmark Finland France Greece Iceland Italy Luxemburg Norway Portugal Spain Sweden The Netherlands Macedonian Citizens do need visa to enter Canada and the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.80.244.204 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Macedonian passport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114203733/http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=307 to http://mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=307
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205152324/http://www.mvr.gov.mk/Uploads/precisten%20tekst%20SV%2073%2004.pdf to http://www.mvr.gov.mk/Uploads/precisten%20tekst%20SV%2073%2004.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921001442/http://www.mvr.gov.mk/Uploads/Baranje%20za%20izdavanje%20na%20pasos%20mak.pdf to http://www.mvr.gov.mk/Uploads/Baranje%20za%20izdavanje%20na%20pasos%20mak.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080404012759/http://www.mvr.gov.mk/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=5&tabid=184&parent=100 to http://www.mvr.gov.mk/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=5&tabid=184&parent=100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

North Macedonia passport | State posessions cannot bear the adjective "Macedonian"

The adjective "Macedonian" cannot be used in government or bodies financed partially by the government of the Republic of North Macedonia. Instead, these bodies have to be referred as "of North Macedonia". This was mutually established and became officially legal in North Macedonia after the ratification of the Prespa Treaty. The government has already started the renaming of all institutions bearing the adjective "Macedonian" for that reason.

Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion and in order to respect the sensitivity of both nations, the article should be referred to as it is legally accepted and established: "Passport of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia passport".

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/north-macedonia-rename-state-funded-bodies-anthem-61507425 https://www.amna.gr/en/article/340916/North-Macedonia-begins-renaming-state-institutions--agencies https://balkaneu.com/government-in-north-macedonia-decides-to-change-the-names-of-136-institutions-in-the-country/

--Elias I. Raptis (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

We had a central discussion on how to handle these naming issues, please see WP:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. A result will be posted shortly; until then, it's best not to make sweeping changes. There was no consensus in the RfC to avoid the adjective "Macedonian" in contexts like this. Please also note that we do not use "North Macedonia" retroactively in historical contexts pre-2019. Plus, this article necessarily describes the existing, pre-Prespa passports, since updated ones with the new names don't exist yet, so please don't change descriptions such as saying that the nationality is entered as "Citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia". It certainly will be in the new ones to be issued. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

We are not the North Macedonian government; thus we are not subject to Prespa. Should be at the adjectival form anyway since that's how it's done for all passport articles here. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• North Macedonia passport.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: It was unanimously agreed that passport should not have a capital P. The rest of this discussion was about whether there should be a letter "n" after Macedonia. It was finely balanced, but consensus seems to support using Macedonian, so that is where I have moved it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

---

North Macedonian Passport → North Macedonian passport – Proper capitalization. Khajidha (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this article was previously moved unilaterally ten times within 15 months, 4 times within the last month:

• 15 Feb 2019 [1] from "Macedonian passport" to "North Macedonian passport" by User:Dash9Z
• 15 Feb 2019 [2] back to "Macedonian passport" by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise
• 23 Feb 2019 [3] back to "North Macedonian passport" by User:Robert7211
• 23 Feb 2019 [4] to "Macedonian passport (North Macedonia)" by User:Macedonicus
• 25 Feb 2019 [5] back to "Macedonian passport" by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise
• 8 Jun 2019 [6] to "North Macedonia passport" by User:Numberguy6
• 27 Apr 2020 [7] back to "Macedonian passport" by User:Makedonija
• 12 May 2020 [8] to "North Macedonian Passport" by User:Antondimak
• 12 May 2020 [9] to "North Macedonia Passport" by User:Tomica
• 16 May 2020 [10] back to "North Macedonian Passport" by User:Khajidha

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Before the discussion starts, I'd like to remind everyone that the applicable naming policy for this article title is WP:NCMAC. I also think that the title should revert back to the relatively stable version by User:Numberguy6 - which was "North Macedonia passport". This version was there for almost a year, and then an edit war by Macedonian and Greek editors got to this version. The issue is not whether to use a capitalized version of "passport". --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support return to proper capitalization ("passport"), obviously. Weak support for keeping the proper adjectival form ("Macedonian") rather than the bare nominal compound form ("Macedonia"), which is unidiomatic if not downright ungrammatical in English. Neutral on whether it should be bare "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian". I very much anticipate there won't be any consensus here, as there are three candidate forms and three groups of editors, each of which strongly objects to one form but accepts the other two, hence a three-way stalemate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Note that the bare nominal compound form is accepted in English if there is no adjectival form: New Zealand passport. I don't have a strong view on the question, but if you take the view that "North Macedonian" is not a legitimate adjective, then "North Macedonia passport" is not that far-fetched. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, yes, compounds are used if there are no adjectival forms. But linguistically, there clearly is an adjective available here ("Macedonian", with or without the "North"), so I'd suppose it would grammatically preempt the use of the compound here, in terms of native speakers' linguistic intuition. That's independent of whether people feel the adjective (with or without the "North") is politically acceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Australians are native speakers of English, and apparently they consider "North Macedonia passport" good enough to use on an official government website. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think there should be a move, but I agree with King of Hearts. According to me, it should be moved to North Macedonia passport, like it was before this senseless name moving started. — Tom^(T2ME) 08:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support changing back to the version reached by the consensus ("North Macedonia passport"), before it was unceremoniously changed into "Macedonian" without discussion (as has happened in many other articles). --Antondimak (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Antondimak: What consensus where? --T*U (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

In last year's RfC, and the subsequent process of updating to the new standard shortly after. --Antondimak (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Antondimak: Are you really claiming that "North Macedonia passport" is the version reached by the consensus in last year's RfC? Then you will need to show us where. --T*U (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It was the version reached by the consensus in the subsequent process of updating to the new standard shortly after. The RfC decided it would be "North Macedonian" if we are to use an adjective. So not "Macedonian". It doesn't say anything against doing what is done for countries like San Marino, where no adjective is used. So this version isn't banned by the RfC, was chosen for this instance last year, and seems to be the least controversial one. I wouldn't be against "North Macedonian" either, but I won't push for it. --Antondimak (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment per Antondimak. North Macedonia passport is the correct name of the article, most in line with the spirit of WP:NCMAC and the majority of reliable sources (UN, etc.). There are other examples apart from New Zealand passport - such as San Marino passport and Bosnia and Herzegovina passport. Capitalization is not an issue, it's obvious that it should be "passport". --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Antondimak and FlavrSavr. The three examples of New Zealand passport, San Marino passport and Bosnia and Herzegovina passport are very good, and I think handling North Macedonia in an identical way is fair enough, that is, "North Macedonia passport" for the title and the box, and "North Macedonia citizenship" like we do for New Zealand citizenship, San Marino citizenship and Bosnia and Herzegovina citizenship. Nikokiris (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - It seems there is some confusion over what is being discussed here. There are Supports and Opposes that both say to move to "North Macedonia passport". --Khajidha (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support original suggestion in RfC. This has become a rather messy RfC. Above are mostly "Support" votes, but they support two different solutions. The suggestion of the RfC is to keep the adjectival form "North Macedonian" and just change the capitalization, which is what I support. Many of the "Support" votes given here are for using the substantival form "North Macedonia", a version not mentioned by the RfC question. There is also one "Oppose" vote supporting the same version. As for the argumentation about "New Zealand" etc., it is probably covered by WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if we are going that way, it would be more reasonable to look at South African passport, South Sudanese passport and others. The comparison with NZ etc. is actually not very good, since those countries does not have an obvious adjectival form, while North Macedonia (and South Africa etc.) has. --T*U (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is already a suggestion that has been discussed in the past, then I also support your proposal. You are right that the examples of New Zealand, San Marino, and Bosnia and Herzegovina are not good. South Africa is the perfect example, because there is no country North Africa, like there is no country South Macedonia. So I agree to handle North Macedonian passport in the same way with the South African passport. I also find your argument about an obvious adjectival form very good. North Macedonian is indeed obvious, but the other three countries don't have an obvious one. Nikokiris (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It was indeed decided to use "North Macedonian" and not "North Macedonia" as an adjective when referring to the country. However this isn't adjectival usage (as per San Marino, New Zealand, etc.), and therefore isn't banned by the RfC. I supported it mainly because it's what was decided last year when a lot of people were involved, attempting to reverse the changes that have been made by few individuals since. --Antondimak (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Antondimak: It is true that the substantivial construction is possible, but it is the adjectivial usage that is the normal in English. Would you ever consider "Greece passport", "Albania passport", "Switzerland passport", "Spain passport". I guess not, and I am certain that common English usage dictates (remember WP:COMMONNAME?) "Greek", "Albanian", "Swiss", "Spanish" in this context. I am also certain that "Macedonian passport" (and not "Macedonia passport") was the common English usage before Preapa. I will not make a guess about whether the common name today is "Macedonian passport" or "North Macedonian passport", but I am quite confident it is one of them. There simply is no reason to make any cramped substantivial construction, just like "South African", "North Korean" and historically "Eastern German". --T*U (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This construction is being used for other countries, and seems to be the least controversial one. Again I'm just trying to reverse the most clear violations of the consensus and to choose the least controversial option for now. --Antondimak (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Antondimak. At the point where the RfC was conducted it was simply to early to tell which one of the adjectival usage will become WP:COMMONNAME and indeed it still is, if you look at the reliable sources. Furthermore, because of the way the RfC was structured editors really didn't specify what to chose if there was a choice of North Macedonia (non-adjectival use) or North Macedonian (adjectival use) in an article title. The discussion in the RfC mostly revolved around what to use within the articles themselves, in which it was clear that for *state related entities* "North Macedonian" would be preferred (there was no consensus on other entities, though). In an absence of a clear WP:COMMONNAME avoidance of adjectival use is the best, most WP:NPOV course and the least likely to cause friction.--FlavrSavr (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, it was decided not to use "North Macedonia" as a replacement of adjectival identifiers, but in this case there is precedent in using the country name. --Antondimak (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

No there isn't. There is precedent for using compounds with the country name where that is compatible with proper English grammar. In cases where adjectives exist, it isn't proper English grammar. Citing cases like "New Zealand" as if they were comparable to this here is disingenuous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This was supposed to be the most moderate option. If it causes even more controversy then we may as well use "North Macedonian". --Antondimak (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The "most moderate option" is to quit trying to control English grammar and usage. --Khajidha (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• North Macedonia passport is probably the best outcome here so we don't have to discuss the adjective stuff. --Local hero ^talk 19:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Summary, it seems like the options and the arguments of the discussion are the following:

• North Macedonia, it is a neutral form but is not proper english and was not an option in the RfC question either
• Macedonian, it is proper english, but it may not be the proper adjectival reference for North Macedonia based on consensus reached last year as claimed above
• North Macedonian, it is proper english, it is proper adjectival reference for North Macedonia, and there was also consensus as claimed above

So the question is, was there really consensus about using North Macedonian when we refer to something related to the state? An answer here would simplify the problem. In my opinion, WP:MOSMAC confirms this claim, but it would be nice to clarify this issue before we take a side and vote, because I feel like we talk about different things. Nikokiris (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The Australian government would disagree that "North Macedonia passport" is not proper English. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support North Macedonia passport per my comments above, as there is definitely support for its use in external sources. But I can also accept Passport of North Macedonia as a compromise between those who want to strictly enforce grammatical rules and those who believe that doing so would violate some "common sense" constraint. This reminds me of the debate over the Aurora shooting: the grammarians wanted "Aurora, Illinois, shooting", the "common sense" people said that looks ridiculous and preferred "Aurora, Illinois shooting", while "2019 Aurora shooting" (a technically unambiguous title) was rejected for causing potential confusion with Aurora, Colorado, the site of two other shootings. In such a case perhaps "Shooting in Aurora, Illinois" would be a reasonable compromise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• RfC decision for State-associated and other public entities: as reported here in #3 by the Arbitration Committee, and we have to accept as a community, as they said:

What term should be used when referring to state-associated entities, including governmental organisations and official ranks, as well as other public entities from North Macedonia as specified in Prespa agreement?

Option B: Both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. e.g. the North Macedonian Government or the Government of North Macedonia.

The closing panel agrees that there is consensus for Option B. Furthermore, noting the fact that public entities are being retitled per Prespa agreement, newer sources find "North Macedonia"-related terminology more common, and we have the existing policies of WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME.

I will not vote here, there is a super-clear RfC decision. Peace in balkans (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's arguable whether a passport counts as a "state-associated entity", since one would most typically imagine governmental agencies rather than individual government-issued documents when reading that. Indeed, it has quite a bit in common with the nationality question (since a (North) Macedonian passport indicates (North) Macedonian citizenship), on which the panel found no consensus.

Also, note that per WP:NCMAC, "Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether." I view RfC question 3 as rejecting "Macedonian" in favor of "North Macedonian" on state entities (again, not clear if that applies here), but silent on whether "North Macedonia" can be used as a noun adjunct. IMO "North Macedonia passport" is in keeping with the spirit of the RfC, and the only thing it contravenes is a prescriptivist view of grammatical rules. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That last sentence in the guideline was added by someone as an afterthought during the final redacting of the guideline, with very little discussion, and I doubt it ever had consensus. It is certainly not based on any consensus achieved in the RfC. Honestly, I notice that sentence just now for the first time (and I was quite actively involved in both the RfC and the subsequent drafting discussion, but I must have missed that last-second addition). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have just assumed (like everybody else, I guess) that the guideline was made according to the result of the RfC. Now it turns out that it contains "rules" that never were discussed in the RfC. I have been digging into the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia), and it seems that this "rule" was first introduced in this edit and later repeated here with the comment This is also non-contentious, I believe. The present discussion shows clearly that such is not the case (and I am surpriced that anyone could think it was). So now is the question: Do we really have to consider a guideline that has never been discussed? --T*U (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the entirety of what NCMAC should say: 1) write just as you would for any country with a name in the format of _____________ia. --Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The draft guideline based on RfC was proposed by Future Perfect at Sunrise and there was a lively discussion with numerous additions and proposals which were again, voted and discussed over and over again. To say guideline that has never been discussed for a guideline that was discussed for months in detail is disrespectful to all those of us who have been there from the start to the end. Future Perfect at Sunrise wanted to bridge the gap between the results of the RfC and a truly workable guideline so he took his creative energy and put a proposal which was then amended by good faith proposals, again - discussed in detail. Nowhere in the RfC would you read that in all other contexts, both "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may be used on Wikipedia in reference to the country, because there was no consensus on that issue but everybody agreed that it was a reasonable compromise, although the default "no consensus" solution would be to keep to the old guideline, namely, "Macedonian". Also, my proposal about the article titles etc. was in the spirit of the RfC discussions which mostly revolve around usage in the articles themselves. The proposal was there, for several days, maybe even weeks, and nobody ever objected to it... because it was, in fact, non-contentious. It wasn't a 'last second addition' somehow foxed in the guideline. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

For a brief history of how this 'last second addition' happened, read this discussion. Future Perfect at Sunrise, this is not the first time you're noticing this sentence. :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

My comment about a guideline that has never been discussed was of course not referring to the total guideline, but to the specific part about article titles. That was never discussed in the RfC, and it is imo far from being non-contentious. --T*U (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, this was discussed in the RfC, and it was discussed post-RfC. Just please take the time to read the actual comments in the RfC (they mostly revolve around usage within articles) and how this part came into being. --FlavrSavr (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reread the relevant parts of the original RfC, and I am even more convinced that there is no foundation in that discussion or in the closure for the should avoid adjectival use altogether. The other discussion you link to was conducted after the guideline was released, so I cannot see that it has anything to do with how this part came into being. --T*U (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I'm sorry to intervene in the conversation with FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) but having participated actively to the RfC and the post-RfC drafting, I just want to add my two cents on the matter. If you go and check my vote on the specific RfC question it was very clear to me at the time that "of North Macedonia" seems to be the only appropriate choice for page titles, given that it is the only WP:OFFICIALNAME as defined by the agreement and acknowledged by all involved parties (e.g. "Government of North Macedonia", "Prime Minister of North Macedonia"). I don't see however what should prevent us to use the natural adjectival equivalent, within articles, when we would do exactly the same for any other case. This was never contested by anyone during the RfC, while the closing committee's remarks are that public entities are being retitled per Prespa agreement and newer sources find "North Macedonia"-related terminology more common, without stipulating the use of one or another form. I noticed many times during the RfC that we were lacking clarity in the formulation of the RfC questions but my understanding of WP:OFFICIALNAMES, WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:NAMECHANGES policies is that when we are discussing a question about "State-associated and other public entities" that are being officially renamed per Prespa agreement we need to follow the official renaming and/or use the common names when possible. Given that in the contentious issue of adjectives the closing committee's comment is that there is no consensus to mandate the use of one adjective or the other at all times (Macedonian vs North Macedonian), how else can this be translated to a rule that respects all above policies and conclusions in the titles of State-associated and other public entities officially renamed per Prespa agreement? --Argean (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

What I really like here is that FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) is a user with a lot of experience on Wikipedia, and this experience should not allow him to cheat, but he does it in any possible way. He was the one who propsed a sentence not discussed in the RfC and was involved in making WP:MOSMAC, and his comments back then sound like he accepts it, by saying it is a compromise. But in practice we see that he goes to every article and he replaces North Macedonian with North Macedonia's with the excuse "per Prespa agreement", violating WP:MOSMAC and engligh grammar. He also maintains a list with the so-called reliable sources, which is of course updated based on his needs. A quick google search will show to everyone that he doesn't include a lot of references to North Macedonian that come from international organizations, and most likely from other media too. So every time he wants to make a point about which term is used more often, he says look here. So silly! On one hand FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) has a lot of experience and contributes in Wikipedia, but on the onther hand he constantly ignores rules. He puts North Macedonian nationalism on the top and then Wikipedia quality. And of course there is Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) who is an administrator, but instead of ensuring that WP:MOSMAC is correct based on consensus, it is applied in practice, and nobody violates WP:MOSMAC, he has focused on me. He calls me a single-purpose account because I constantly report all these violations by other users, and he doesn't care about his role as an administator here. He cares only that I am a single-purpose account. FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) is not the only bad example here of North Macedonian nationalism who thinks that the word North Macedonian can be offensive... so silly! How can it be bad to say North Macedonian government? How can you argue that is government of North Macedonia and not North Macedonian government. North Macedonia is the only country in the world that announces guidelines on how the media should call stuff. Oh my god....! SO much nationalism in a country of 2M people! What is wrong with North? Do South African people have the same problems with South? But yes.... I am single-purpose account, so even if I make correct edits, Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) hates me because I introduce problems in his project.

A month ago I wrote on the talk page of WP:MOSMAC to report subjective claims about the Prespa Agreement, and the Arbitration Committee aggreed with me, but for one more time Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) said "ignore it.. it's a single-purpose account". So the lovely administrator does not care about what is wrong but if the account has many wrong edits or a few correct edits. So silly! Now we have another problem because of this clique of people who do everything to remove Nort Macedonian in any possible way. So silly! Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) had the chance to improve WP:MOSMAC a month ago based on my suggestions, but he focused on me and not my suggestions. Because of his silly behavior, now we face the same problems again. Let's see, will he do his job as an administrator or he will say again "you are a single-purpose account and I ignore you even if you are 100% right". Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) I know you want me to go away, and I will do it, but only when I see with my eyes that you have done your job, otherwise I will be here to remind you! I am not staying for you, it's not that I like you, I stay for Wikipedia!

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) if you don't take any actions to solve the problems I have already reported, I will report you again for biased decisions, and I will ping the Arbitration Committee again. You know not all people care about who is a single-purpose account. Reasonable people care about reasonable arguments.

Do you think I have nothing better to you than dealing with the same clique of people again and again? There is obviously a reason. So stop the problem instead of complaining. Peace in balkans (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There are obviously a lot of articles with "North Macedonian" in them, some of them in article titles. Ironically, you accuse people of different nationalities of... Macedonian nationalism. Would you also call Argean, who's also a Greek, a "nationalist"? Maybe you're the nationalist. I've read you accusations a month before I chose to ignore them. This is my last comment on your antics. Good luck with the ArbCOM. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

What does it mean There are obviously a lot of articles with "North Macedonian" in them, some of them in article titles? Why there should be a lot? or why there should NOT be a lot? There should be as many as there has to be based on the RfC decision. We are not here to count articles, we are here to write articles of as good quality as possible, but your North Macedonian glasses don't allow you to put Wikipedia on the top of your priorities.

I never started making any edits to change Macedonian to North Macedonian for people, culture or whatever violates the RfC and the decisions of this community. You are the one who goes to every article and you say "per Prespa agreement", although you know the agreement doesn't matter, and edits are made in line with WP:MOSMAC.

Yes call me nationalist or even Southerner or Cetralist, does it change anything about my arguments? I was the one who said during the RfC that the ethnic Macedonian should still be called Macedonians, and whatever related to the ethnicity should still be called Macedonian, and I also said there is no reason to discuss these issues. So where is the nationalism? I respect everybody here and the RfC decisions, and all I want to see is that the decisions are respected by everyone.

How do you know that Argean is Greek or feels Greek? It's another single-purpose account that worked only on the RfC, and since then Argean has disappeared from Wikipedia. Did you see when was his last edit in Wikipedia? BTW Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) why you love this single-purpose account but you have issues with me?

You see that all my arguments are in line with WP:MOSMAC that you and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) essentially wrote, so why you don't respect this piece of work that you did? It's insane!

You can call it "antics", but you still don't tell me what is wrong from all my claims. Just tell the truth. Can you disprove any of my claims? Peace in balkans (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

In the discussion on the talk page of 2019 North Macedonian presidential election, everybody can see that FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) was trying to push the idea of avoiding to use North Macedonian in the title, and the user Number 57 tried to explain to FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) in every possible way that only North Macedonian is in line with WP:MOSMAC. Now, for one more time, FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) does the same for the passport, the identity card, and for everything else. FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) always tries to find excuses to avoid North Macedonian like it is a prohibited word. I also noticed that Number 57 correctly reverted the edits of another user who removed the adjectival reference North Macedonian from the page of 2019 North Macedonian presidential election, so he has faced the same problems. FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) I don't know what else I can tell you, so please stop damaging wikipedia articles and respect the rules here! Peace in balkans (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment I don't really want to waste my time talking to an individual that just appeared in Wikipedia in order to promote their own agenda, but it's really annoying to see my name surfacing and being attacked for no apparent reason, without any provocation of any kind from my side. This will be my only and very last reply to Peace in balkans (talk · contribs) on this page, so please respect that.

How do you know that Argean is Greek or feels Greek? OK, I will just ignore the second part of this sentence and treat the first one as pure WP:AGF ignorance. If you want we can move the discussion to my personal page and continue in Greek, because this would be very inappropriate to do on English Wikipedia. Otherwise, I have nothing to say, because I expect that the very next thing to be requested from me will be DNA test results and a Πιστοποιητικό κοινωνικών φρονημάτων ('Certificate of Political Beliefs') as well...

It's another single-purpose account that worked only on the RfC, and since then Argean has disappeared from Wikipedia. Did you see when was his last edit in Wikipedia? I feel very important being spied upon, so thank you very much for the attention. You should know then that I'm more active at Wikimedia Commons, where my main interests lie in. It's ridiculous having that said by a user that hasn't done a single edit in a page that doesn't contain the word Macedonian.

@FlavrSavr: How are you my friend? Please, don't waste your time with narrow-minded obsessed people that have no other purpose in life but pushing their own views - they never listen to what other people say anyway. We had a very productive discussion over one year ago, and we managed to build a very comprehensive set of rules respecting all views and representing very well the actual use of terms. There were always going to be people that will try to hijack any constructive and collaborative efforts around here - they don't deserve our time and attention, as long as the community understands and respects the spirit and the rules of Wikipedia.

I won't participate to this RfC because that could be easily considered canvassing. I'm afraid that the discussion above is not coherent anyway. I just want make a comment on this and confirm that FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) has summarised the situation very well - of course there were no contentious sentences added to WP:MOSMAC at the last moment. There was a very thorough discussion on every single word added to WP:MOSMAC and everything was agreed among people coming from very different backgrounds and positions. I don't think that circumstances have changed since and most post-RfC conversations on the matter are initiated from the very same people that were not happy with the outcome and want to continue pushing their own agenda. --Argean (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Argean: you know very well that I didn't attack to you. It's a fact that you are a single-purpose account, based on the edits, and being single-purpose user is fine for me. By saying we don't know if you are Greek or not, I don't mean that I care about your identity and your feelings. I mean that it simply doesn't matter. The arguments of people matter here, neither where they come from nor how many edits they have. If you misunderstood, that's another story and for this reason I clarify that here. Peace in balkans (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I just want to add that from what I remember I too don't think there is anything really unjustified in WP:MOSMAC. What was written truly reflected the view of the majority of the participants. --Antondimak (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. There shouldn't be a problem with using "North Macedonian" and it's depressing to see the outcome of the RfC with regards to the use of the adjectival form for state-associated and other public entities (consensus was found to use "North Macedonian" or "of North Macedonia") has still not been incorporated into WP:MOSMAC. Number 57 12:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as proposed for North Macedonian, based on the RfC decision and WP:MOSMAC. Peace in balkans (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support of North Macedonian passport. After considering all comments, I am now convinced that North Macedonia passport is unsuitable. I change my vote. Nikokiris (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support North Macedonian passport (country's name, proper grammar). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Since I'm always unimpressed by the lack of references to guidelines in an RfC I just want to remind WP:TITLE, that as a longstanding Wikipedia policy played an important role in the 2019 RfC and formatting WP:MOSMAC.

-Is "North Macedonian passport" a common recognised name verified by multiple WP:RS? No apparently according to Google, Google news.

-Is it an WP:OFFICIALNAME that should be used as a title for reasons of e.g WP:PRECISION and WP:DISAMBIGUATION? Definitely not.

-Is it a neutral name either? Could definitely be, but not since the 2019 RfC concluded that there is WP:NOCONSENSUS in the use of adjectives.

-Is it a natural name? Absolutely yes as noted by many as well during the RfC and voted over the other choices in this particular RfC question which were of North Macedonia only or of North Macedonia/Macedonian, neither of which conforms to the rules of natural English especially within text.

-Is there any requirements of consistency to follow another naming convention as happened in 2019 North Macedonian presidential election (i.e. WP:NCELECT) for passports? Not as far as I am aware of. Noted also the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina passport vs. 2018 Bosnian general election and the relevant requested move to 2018 Bosnian and Herzegovinian general election that was rejected for similar reasons.

As a conclusion both "North Macedonia passport" and "Macedonian passport" seem to be much more popular than "North Macedonian passport", and I can't see for what reason we have decided to ignore that, claiming that there is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at the 2019 RfC that overrides everything else.

P.S. Personally I find no difference between "North Macedonia passport" and "North Macedonian passport", but a huge one to "Macedonian passport". All these considerations were very carefully made during the formatting of WP:MOSMAC and incorporated as appropriate. We all know that WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE but that's what we have for now. --Argean (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Response: All these questions have been discussed above already, and there is also an answer. So probably you haven't read the other comments. If you want, you will find the answer. The Arbitration Committee has taken all these issues into account, and the ArbCom decision is clear and is North Macedonian for state-associaited and public entities. Peace in balkans (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please notify ArbCom that some user is claiming that they have made a clear decision that I'm not aware of and overrides WP:MOSMAC and established Wikipedia policies stipulating that "North Macedonian" is the only term to be used apparently for "state-associated and public entities" including article titles no matter what. I believe that the decision was to use "North Macedonia"-related terminology, that obviously includes non adjectival forms as well. Just to quote the closing committee's ruling of the RfC the conclusion was public entities are being retitled per Prespa agreement and newer sources find "North Macedonia"-related terminology more common. Is anyone aware of any changes to that ruling? Thank you. --Argean (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, ArbCom can clarify this issue, because you can see here the ArbCom decision, it says:

What term should be used when referring to state-associated entities, including governmental organisations and official ranks, as well as other public entities from North Macedonia as specified in Prespa agreement?

Option B: Both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. e.g. the North Macedonian Government or the Government of North Macedonia.

The closing panel agrees that there is consensus for Option B. Furthermore, noting the fact that public entities are being retitled per Prespa agreement, newer sources find "North Macedonia"-related terminology more common, and we have the existing policies of WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME.

Argean do you mean that the last statement cancels what I put in bold? I don't think so, otherwise, it wouldn't say there was consensus for option B. But, I agree ArbCom should be notified if this is the reason for the disagreement here. It doesn't help to misinterpret rules. So ArbCom can tell us who is right here, and we can easily solve the problem. Peace in balkans (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

In the talk page of 2019 North Macedonian presidential election, the user QEDK has explained to FlavrSavr that the RfC didn't explicitly exclude titles of pages, so the ArbCom decision applies to titles too. You can read more about the comments of QEDK who is one of the three users of ArbCom. If you are not convinced about the answers of QEDK, we can ping ArbCom to clarify for one more time. Peace in balkans (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

do you mean that the last statement cancels what I put in bold at all?. Not at all - on the contrary it clarifies it further. The statement that you put in bold is just what users voted for when they were presented with 3 choices - I found the other 2 options completely wrong that's why I voted for B too. The rest is the ruling of the closing committee and it's very important because it doesn't distinguish if an adjectival or a non-adjectival form should be preferentially used. There are other long-standing policies and guidelines in Wikipedia that are always in place and should be respected as the ones I quoted in my previous comment, especially WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES that were also quoted by the committee. The outcome is that we need to decide based on that policies if an adjectival or a non-adjectival form should be used on a page title. Given the lack of an established WP:COMMONNAME (the adjective Macedonian was and is very much still in use by WP:RS) and the fact that the same RfC noticed that the use of adjectives is highly contentious the decision was to try to avoid adjectives in page titles except if this is apparently stipulated by other naming conventions or other Wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as WP:NCELECT for example). I hope that this clarifies things for you but ArbCom's opinion is always welcome if there's still doubt.

PS. I know that I wasn't keen on engaging in discussion with you @Peace in balkans: and I still aren't but I respect and acknowledge your mild shift on your tone. That doesn't mean that I defer my prior kind request to respect my reluctance to reply to you. Thanks. --Argean (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

PS2. The issue at 2019 North Macedonian presidential election surfaced long after the closure of the RfC and we were not aware of WP:NCELECT at the time so this was eventually respected on that page. There might be other contradicting naming conventions that I'm not aware of, but there is always room for consensus if there's will for constructive discussion. I agree that the use "North Macedonian" in page titles should not be forbidden especially indeterminately but my opinion is that it should be avoided when possible for all the reasons previously explained. --Argean (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't focus on personal issues here, and actually I don't have any personal issue with any user. About your comment, I agree, but the decisions says there is consensus for Option B. So the options are either North Macedonian or of North Macedonia. No clear preference which of this two, but certainly not Macedonian for state-associated stuff. Right? So Macedonian passport is not an option, North Macedonia passport is not proper english as explained above multiple times. The only options are North Macedonian passport or Passport of North Macedonia according to the RfC decision. The page titles for passports of other countries suggest North Macedonian passport, but someone with more experience can tell us if it is enforced and not just suggested. The ArbCom decision says to use either North Macedonian or of North Macedonia depending on what we would do for other countries. So this makes me believe North Macedonian passport is the answer here, but I may be wrong. My intention is not to push North Macedonian but to apply the rules in practice. If I am wrong, I will accept it. Peace in balkans (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't focus on personal issues here, and actually I don't have any personal issue with any user. I absolutely agree and consider that a major shift from your previous tone so thank you for that. options are either North Macedonian or of North Macedonia that's exactly the case (other non-adjectival formulations are apparently also allowed). We specifically ruled against the use of "Macedonian" because some users could claim that this is still the WP:COMMONNAME and should still be used like in the case of Burmese passport for example. The common understanding though of all users involved in RfC and formatting the guidelines was that the use of adjectives is very problematic so it should be avoided as much as possible, especially if other forms seem to have more or similarly common use in WP:RS. Of course they could still be used if this is required by other naming conventions or if there's a well established consensus for a change but we're not there yet.

PS. "North Macedonia passport" is apparently fine for the official website of an English-speaking country such Australia so that's good enough for me. Source: [11] --Argean (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion whether North Macedonia passport is proper english or not, and whether an australian website uses it or not is not a reason for us to adopt the term. What if the austrilian website changes that to North Macedonian passport? Would that be a reason to update wikipedia pages because of a single source? You see my point. Anyway, I think we agree that RfC decision gives us the options to use either North Macedonian or of North Macedonia, and this is a super-clear decision. Your claim about avoiding as much as possible is a personal claim that is not supported by the RfC decision. RfC decision says to use any of these two in the same way we would do for other countries. So if we update the titles for passports of all other countries which have similarities with North Macedonia, I am absolutely fine with both "North Macedonia passport" and "Passport of North Macedonia". All I want is consistency and not trying to break rules. I hope this is clear and we don't need to need to continue. Peace in balkans (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If there are no WP:RS using a term then I wouldn't use it in a title. I made some quick search and I found Australian government website using " North Macedonia passport", Dutch using "North Macedonian passport" and Serbian using "Macedonian passport", so there is definitely no consistency there. Your claim about avoiding as much as possible is a personal claim this was not only my personal opinion but also the emerging rough consensus during the drafting of WP:MOSMAC. Nobody voiced an opposite opinion and the matter was raised by me not only after but during the actual RfC. The RfC unfortunately didn't cover that issue at all so we were left with the task of finding a formula that would serve Wikipedia in the best possible way. So if we update the titles for passports of all other countries which have similarities with North Macedonia, I am absolutely fine with both "North Macedonia passport" and "Passport of North Macedonia" it's not about creating new rules but more about respecting the existing ones. The committee specifically mentioned WP:COMMONNAMES so we need to respect that, but according to my understanding this is more rule of thumb rather than very strict prescription and there is no strong consensus either for or against the use of adjectives, although it has been agreed during the RfC that it's a contentious issue and should be treated carefully. If there is an emerging opinion that the circumstances have changed and the issue should be revisited then I think we are happy to do so, but I haven't read any strong arguments that emerged during the last year and were not present during the actual RfC, especially regarding common verifiable names which is the most important guide to use when deciding on article titles. --Argean (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

My quick search gives me that North Macedonian passport is used by the Governments of Netherlands, Bulgaria, and Russia, and there also other reliable sources from organizations. See here: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. By the way, FlavrSavr could you please add all these reliable sources in the page you maintain? I don't see them there. thanks! Peace in balkans (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, of those only the Dutch and the Indian ones are actually official governmental websites, but the rest aren't - I wouldn't even call the rest reliable sources. These are also official governmental websites from Serbia [19] and the UK [20] using the term "Macedonian passport". I think we had this discussion before but it might be useful if you give another read about what reliable sources actually are and take a look at the list of perennial sources as well. --Argean (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

My Greek friend Argean, yes I may don't know what is reliable source for you, but I think you also don't notice that the two links you attached have not even updated the name of the country. The Serbian still says Republic of Macedonia in the text, and the UK link still says FYROM. No surprise if they use Macedonian passport. :-) Peace in balkans (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't decide the definition of WP:RS. And that's their bad for not being updated, not mine! :) --Argean (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The Dutch have changed their formulation. I'll add the Indian one. The rest are not governmental websites, and are not reliable sources. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I am sure that the Dutch Government didn't have anything better to do over the weekend than dealing with the North Macedonian nationalism. Poor Dutch Government... :-) Peace in balkans (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Question Could someone please explain how "North Macedonia passport" isn't using an adjective? Are people taking the entire phrase as a noun or something? It reads as a very stilted adjective, like in New Zealand Passport, United States passport, or Vanuatu passport. CMD (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "[North] Macedonia" isn't an adjective, it's a noun. The combination "[North] Macedonia passport" is a noun-noun compound. People tend to informally refer to the modifying part of a compound construction as an "adjective", but that's not proper linguistic terminology, as it's mixing up morphological form and syntactic function. Both the adjective "Macedonian" and the noun "Macedonia" can syntactically modify another noun that follows them, but they are still different parts of speech. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that gives a specific term for my "entire phrase as a noun" description. CMD (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
      • It may also be called an "adjectival noun" (or just "adjectival" for short). We use "adjective" for the word form, "adjectival" for the function in the sentence. --T*U (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sidetrack

Please see comment at the bottom of this hatted section. --T*U (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Question: One of the sources presented by @Peace in balkans contains the phrase a Bulgarian or North Macedonian Passport holder. How would the supporters of "North Macedonia passport" construct their version of that phrase? --T*U (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC) We can treat "North Macedonia passport" and "North Macedonian passport" as synonyms and use each of them as warranted by the situation, just like "United States passport" and "American passport". So we use "Canadian or American passport", but "Taiwan or United States passport". Likewise, we can do "Bulgarian or North Macedonian passport", but "Bosnia and Herzegovina or North Macedonia passport". It doesn't affect the title we choose for the article: United States passport. (Speaking of Taiwan passport, it is RM-confirmed precedent for using an attributive noun when an adjective exists.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Has there actually been an RM suggesting "Taiwanese passport"? Or were the only options offered "Taiwan passport" and "Republic of China passport"? I could easily see it being moved to Taiwanese if someone decides to bring it up. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "Taiwanese passport" was in fact the original proposal, but a consensus of users preferred "Taiwan passport" based on commonality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I wouldn't rephrase it and for me it looks fine the way it is. I can't see though what is the relevance when discussing about article titles since I can't really see a page named after a Bulgarian or North Macedonian Passport holder. That was the idea behind that question in the RfC and that's exactly why the the relevant section reads should be both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. That neither excludes or dictates the use of adjectives in titles, but I can't see how this can override the long-standing policy of WP:COMMONNAMES that was explicitly quoted by the closing committee. It's rather obvious that if there's no common verifiable name found in WP:RS then we can't force one and if there's no consensus for using adjectives in titles why do we need to do so if other forms are equally acceptable? It's also obvious that we will definitely use adjectives within text if this is required by proper English grammar, but that's not the question in contention here, is it? --Argean (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC) The phrase is fine the way it is. But we're discussing about the article title here. I agree with King of Hearts, and there are other examples, as well (San Marino passport). The thing is that nobody bats an eye about those examples, and for some reason we're fixated that "North Macedonia passport" in an article title will somehow reduce the linguistical purity of Wikipedia. In the case of 2019 North Macedonian presidential election, there was an actual naming policy WP:NCGAL which has overriden WP:NCMAC, but somehow is massively ignored elsewhere (see 2020 United States presidential election, ). The adjective in the United Nations is "of North Macedonia", and there is an allowance for "Macedonian". Wikipedia is no the UN, of course, but I'm not sure why efforts from editors from the region (both from North Macedonia and Greece) to explain the subtlety of this are met with such resistance, even derision. --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Nobody ever really talks about San Marino, so it doesn't come up. "North Macedonia" fits a very common pattern of countries with names of the form "___________ia". These virtually all use the form "______ian", with the partial exception of Bosnia and Hercegovina, where the compound nature of the name complicates matters (especially if you do not just shorten it to "Bosnian"). I can't understand why editors from the region (both North Macedonia and Greece) give a damn how English grammar works. Really, what other languages call my country are of less than no importance to me. I don't even consider myself to have the right to care. You can call my country Narnia, or Mongo, or Mxyzptlk and I will happily accept it and go along with it when speaking your language.--Khajidha (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC) How about Somalia - Somali? Why do we have the tendency to forget that toponymics is a complex field that involves much more that simple linguistic morphology and often transcends boundaries between languages? There are many peculiarities in the formation of toponyms and ethnonyms, including e.g. English language using a Venetian toponym for a country that it's called "Black Mountain" in their native language. If North Macedonia decided to use their new name untranslated as "Severna Makedonija" (as it was seriously discussed at some point and actually proposed by the Greek government), like Moldova or Belarus did (not to mention Republika Srpska), what should then the derivative adjective be? It's not all just about grammar, there is significant semasiology behind the names of people and places in any language to be so easily and aphoristically overlooked. --Argean (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Somalian is also used. And whatever is used is ultimately up to the English language, not the Greek, Macedonian, Somalian, etc governments. --Khajidha (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I don't care about governments but I always thought that people should have a say in the name they are being called - in any language. I believe languages were constructed to serve people, not the opposite. --Argean (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Countries are not people. They are sections of ground. --Khajidha (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Would you rather then name people after the way you call the ground they live on, or vice versa? You can easily change the name of a section of the ground but would you do the same for the people living on it? It's just a word after all. --Argean (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I explained my position before. What words other languages use for my country and my nationality are none of my business. And vice versa. If you call my country "Narnia" and it its inhabitants "Narnians", that is fine with me. If I call your country "_______ia" and its inhabitants "__________ians", that should not affect you. Unless the name is inherently offensive in English (like "Shitholia"). --Khajidha (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC) No, what I'm referring to is changing the name of your country in your language. Am I also allowed to change the way I call you - in any language including yours? --Argean (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Nobody changed the name of the country in the language of the people. First, there is no way to control languages. Second, Prespa Agreement dictates official names and not how people will call a country in their language. Nikokiris (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Exactly and that's why the well-established policy of WP:COMMONNAMES is very important in wikipedia. An encyclopedia observes the facts, does not prescribe them. --Argean (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Ellada is the name its people use for the country that the rest of the worlds calls Greece, and who cares? Yunanistan is the name for Ellada (Greece) in the turkish language, and again who cares? Why should Greeks introduce rules about the turkish language or any other language? Greeks are self-identified as Ellines, but we call them Greeks, and Turks call them Yunan, who cares? People in North Macedonia would be happier if they focused on their real problems than on how other people call them. People in both Greece and North Macedonia agree that the languages and the ethnic groups of the two countries are different, the naming dispute is about how the words are translated in english. Simple solution would be the country is called Makedonija, and the language is called Makedonski. No constitutional changes would be necessary. This obsession to control languages and dictate how others will call something related to North Macedonia can lead to more troubles when North Macedonia wants to join EU. Nikokiris (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Sure, but I guess you are aware that names of countries and people don't just pop up spontaneously. Yunanistan comes from the very beautiful and very Greek word Ιωνία. Names are unavoidably an inseparable part of someone's identity - words would be just sounds if they had no meaning at all and names would be useless if there were not used for identification. This is where the real obsession lies in both sides of the borders - it is not the signifier but the signified that matters. --Argean (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Sure, Ionians is one of the four tribes from which the Greek nation comes from. Similarly, Bulgarians is one of the nations where North Macedonians come from. The difference is that Greeks don't care about how the Turks call them, but North Macedonians don't want to hear about their Bulgarian roots although they speak a Bulgarian dialect. North Macedonians care too much about how other people call them and I think is not unrelated to hiding their Bulgarian roots. I think every nation has many good reasons to be proud of its origin, so hiding roots is not understandable for me. Nikokiris (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Ethnogenesis is a much more complex process to be described with oversimplistic modern etymology. The very same meaning of nation is more modern than some of the words you just used in this paragraph - and some of the words you have used have changed their meaning before the modern concept of nation was ever conceived. Let people decide about how they feel about their identity, don't use your own depictions of identity to define them. I guess that you are also aware of the lack of continuity in the use of terms to describe what is considered to be the modern Greek nation: "Ρωμιός", "Γραικός" and "Έλλην" have had a complex overlapping semasiology for a substantial amount of time before the modern terminology was firmly established. Names are important for identity but they are used to describe and not to define people. The use of names in each language is a slow and complex process that can not be enforced by anyone or their individual beliefs. --Argean (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I don't know who is in charge of this discussion, but this is getting out of control. I thought we were here discussing the name of this article. Who knew that we would have "historians" coming up with how nationalistic ethnic Macedonians were and how they can't accept a simple newly given name. I think someone she bring the refocus here and collapse most of the comments since they are definitely unrelated, biased and redundant. — Tom(T2ME) 23:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC) My question seems to have created a discussion that is a complete sidetracking of the main question in this section. It was not my intention to spark this kind of discussion, I was just searching for clarification, which was duly given in the first couple of comments. I am hatting it now to stop this going further away from the main track, and I apologize for having triggered it. --T*U (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It's apparent that this RfC is left in limbo since the actual question (about proper capitalisation of the word 'passport') isn't being addressed by hardly any of the participating users. Instead almost all participating users find that another question needs to be adressed and that is the potential move of the page from North Macedonia passport that was the previous consensus name to either North Macedonian passport or Macedonian passport. That means that de facto the prior to this RfC bold move by Khajidha (talk · contribs) (as well other intermediate moves as documented on the top of the RfC) does not have consensus. Therefore I believe there's no use in continuing this RfC and the page should be moved back to North Macedonia passport and a new RfC should be initiated by any user that deems that appropriate. Does any other user have a different understanding of the situation? --Argean (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree with you Argean. — Tom^(T2ME) 18:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise, FlavrSavr, King of Hearts, Antondimak, TU-nor, Local hero, Number 57, and Amanuensis Balkanicus: pinging all other participating non-SPA users too. --Argean (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Argean: Just letting you know that this ping did not work. --T*U (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Thanks. @Future Perfect at Sunrise, Local hero, Number 57, and Amanuensis Balkanicus: repeating the ping for the rest --Argean (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The page has stayed at North Macedonia passport for about 10 months, making it more stable compared to the others; it's been at Macedonian passport for longer, but that's clearly unsuitable now given the name change, so if there's any status quo I guess "North Macedonia passport" would be it. However, what's more important is to have a community discussion to refine and ultimately ratify WP:NCMAC, whose precise wording was apparently adopted without much community input. The problems have become very clear in this RM, where people are forced to go back to the RfC and come up with their own interpretation of it because WP:NCMAC didn't do a good job of it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's about ratifying WP:NCMAC but adding more clarity to some of the issues that were insufficiently discussed. Users that took part to the RfC might remember very well that there were many of us that raised doubts about the bad/inadequate formatting of the RfC questions - I'm afraid we were more fixated on the actual Prespa agreement rather than the real use of terms, and there was significant resistance from a number of users that wanted the questions to be in line with the text of the agreement. That is how this question on state-associated entities came to be and this badly formatted RfC question is what is causing this very specific problem with article titles. I did raise the issue during the RfC, as I mentioned earlier, but this was overlooked at the time. The WP:NCMAC was left to deal with an unsolvable situation - it was the RfC that did a bad job unfortunately. --Argean (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Argean. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't. The RM should just be closed by an administrator based on the arguments made here; putting aside the walls of text above, a reasonable consensus appears to have emerged. And please don't ping me again; I have no desire to engage further with this nationalist nonsense. Thanks, Number 57 12:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

No need. I am sure that the editor volunteering to close this discussion will be perfectly able to sort out the relevant parts of it, including disregarding arguments based on the avoid adjectival use altogether "rule". --T*U (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: @QEDK: @Neutrality: I am really sorry for bothering you. You were in the ArbCom of the RfC about Macedonia naming conventions, and point #3 of your RfC decision says that there was consensus about the usage of North Macedonian for State-associated and other public entities. However, your decision has not been written in WP:MOSMAC, and an incorrect statement that excludes titles from the usage of North Macedonian was later added in the bottom of WP:MOSMAC (although it was not part of you decision). There is a request to call the passport of North Macedonia, North Macedonian passport (instead of the current North Macedonia passport), but some users claim that your decision is not about passports and identity cards. Could you please clarify if the consensus of ARbCom reached for State-associated entities should be applied to passports and identity cards? Otherwise, this kind of discussions will continue for ever due to the vague way WP:MOSMAC was written. The user QEDK has already explained in a similar situation on the talk page of the 2019_North_Macedonian_presidential_election that It is assumed, if not stated, that the policy applies where applicable, so contrary to the claim that it cannot apply to titles because it wasn't explicitly mentioned, since we used the catch-all word, "terms", it means the more specific policy applies. Peace in balkans (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment for the ArbCom. The WP:SPA-user above forgets to mention that they they want to use the term any time they think it's right, they explicitly say that they don't care about WP:RS (they have their own definition abouth them), prefer to adhere to what their political leader says, or what they allegedly hear every day in the UK (while of course they don't care about BBC). I believe that this behaviour violates the idea of consensus-building that was the cornerstone of the RfC decision in the first place. --Argean (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a valid argument to be made that "reliabe sources", if we use the same criteria as if we want to use what they report as fact in an article, aren't a representative sample of the English language. --Antondimak (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed they are not necessarily but that's not the case here. Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. (from WP:NAMECHANGES). Wikipedia is not a manual on the use of English language. --Argean (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality and verifiability are two of three fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Frankly, I was disappointed that the 2019 RfC took place before reliable sources took note of the name change. If indeed "North Macedonian" is more common than "Macedonian" or "North Macedonia" that should be easily verified by the majority of the reliable sources in the English language reliable sources. It is not.. As all languages, the English language is a convention. I don't know a single English language dictionary that features "North Macedonian" as an adjective. Merriam-Webster features only "Macedonian". Conversely, as someone above brought the example, "South African" is a valid adjective. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if I am all these bad things that you claim, does it change anything about the opinion of ArbCom? Should the decision depend on me? You care more about attacking to me than letting ArbCom figure out what is the proper way to improve wikipedia. Although it shouldn't matter, the ArbCom can see if I have done even a single change that introduces North Macedonian in anything that violates the RfC decision. The ArbCom can see that you are a WP:SPA-user who blames me. I said I don't care about BBC and your manipulated reliable sources maintained here. The ArbCom can confirm my claim by making a search in google and find tones of reliable sources that use North Macedonian and are not recorded in this list. There is a big gap between what I say and what you claim. But you are good in propaganda, anyway. I DO CARE about real reliable sources, and first of all about the RfC decision, and this is confirmed by my very few failed attempts to apply WP:MOSMAC in practice that have been blocked by your friends. Please stop this and respect the people who read this useless comments you produce. This is my last comment. I will let the ArbCom talk for me. Please do the same. Peace in balkans (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

In the case of 2019 North Macedonian presidential election there was a more specific policy, namely WP:NCELECT. I am not aware that there is a naming policy guiding passports. Also, on a clarifying not, the three users mention above are not the ArbCom. :) They are just a panel of three, long-standing, neutral editors. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Firstly as FlavrSavr said, I've never been on the Arbitration Committee and the panel of three was composed of three uninvolved editors and instituted as an ArbCom directive - we are not the committee, we simply closed the RfC and analyzed the consensus. Another point of note is that the ArbCom or the panel has no overruling power over the consensus that was formed in the RfC. So, everything I say or have said is my opinion as a member of the closing panel and in my capacity as an English Wikipedia administrator. Now, coming to the two main questions: 1) Does the MOSMAC naming convention have any say over this particular RM? My opinion is strongly a "maybe". While the question was worded using "entities", neither the community or the closers had any qualms over it, in fact, the primary issue revolved around usage of English grammar and official guidelines - so to limit the meaning of "entities" at this juncture is impossible, my understanding is that it should apply to every entity with WP:COMMONSENSE such as in this case, where it can be construed to apply but it's clearly a stretch to take passports as a state-associated "entity" but certainly not a notion that is incorrect. 2) Does Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether form a part of MOSMAC policy? No. I had stated this categorically before that LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override community consensus at-scale, I had suggested that it should be reworded as a recommentation and in this particular case, it should have much lower precedence compared to consensus formed by the community. Seeing as such how the wording is causing issues, the consensus formed by the community should be highlighted and the current sentence should be removed or stated as a secondary option. I hope that clears it up.​ --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"(before 2019 the Republic of Macedonia)"

I see no reason for this being added other than political bias and an insistence to push "Macedonia" everywhere. Are we really going to include this in every article where North Macedonia is mentioned? --Antondimak (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the bulk of the article discusses passports from before the name change, where we use "Macedonian" in the text for historical reasons, it makes sense to explain that fact in the first sentence. Simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that as more of an argument that we are overdoing it with "historical usage" and making articles confusing. --Antondimak (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Nationality

Nationality says Macedonian, but it is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". Is it a mistake or it is intentionally left Macedonian? Nikokiris (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It was decided to use plain "Macedonian" for simplicity, although the agreement stipulates "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". However in this case it seems to be listing exactly what's written on the passport, so the official term that's actually written on it should most probably be used.--Antondimak (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2021

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Passport of North Macedonia → North Macedonian passport – Literally every other such page seems to use the title format "COUNTRYNAME passport" or else "DEMONYM passport", and the page was moved without discussion from the title I'm proposing. The redirect prevents this from being simply undone.  - Sumanuil (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Sumanuil and Ortizesp: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure if North Macedonian is the correct demonym, even though the country's name has changed my understanding was that the correct demonym remains "Macedonian".--Ortizesp (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Then it should be "Macedonian passport", which is also currently a redirect. - Sumanuil (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• There are a few like United States passport and Saint Kitts and Nevis passport. So, this could be moved to "North Macedonia passport". --Local hero ^talk 01:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• It was moved without discussion, while the previous consensus was for the title to be "North Macedonian passport". Both "Passport of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonian passport" seem fine to me. The correct demonym for the country is "North Macedonian" and not "Macedonian", the latter mostly being a cultural designation for the country's majority ethnic group. "North Macedonia passport" sounds wrong. Unlike the "United States", "North Macedonia" isn't usually used as an adjective. --Antondimak (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• It's incredible how much petty squabbling and edit-warring the naming in this miserable little article provokes. An article that nobody ever seems to have any interest in editing – or reading – for its actual content. Well, the compound-noun form "North Macedonia passport" is out of the question, because it's not proper English. English uses these kinds of nominal compounds only where proper adjectives aren't available. Here, of course, they are available – two of them, both equally good. It's just that one of them is ideologically unacceptable to one edit-warring faction and the other is unacceptable to the other. As long as every use of either "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian" will call forth the edit-warring clowns, it's better to leave the article where it is. "Passport of North Macedonia" is perfectly fine. And uniformity with the naming patterns preferred in other articles is at the very bottom of the list of priorities to consider. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think it is a good idea for it to be named 'North Macedonian Passport' as some Macedonians consider North Macedonian as a slur so you are only asking for vandalism and tons of discussions for many years. I support either keeping it the same or changing it to North Macedonia passport as Local hero and others suggest. I dont support changing it to Macedonian passport either due to the Prespa Agreement. --SeriousCherno (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• This topic has been discussed above and there was consensus on the adjective "North Macedonian". The english language cannot be limited by a bilateral agreement between two countries, and the Prespa agreement does not stipulate the name of the passport. "North Macedonian" is the only correct adjective for "North Macedonia" although may be received as a slur from "some" people as claimed above. Those people who may receive it as a slur may also receive "North Macedonia" as a slur. We cannot call the country "Macedonia" to make "some" people happy, and for the same reason, we cannot avoid the usage of the adjective "North Macedonian". Korpalo (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Both "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" are valid demonyms, so "Macedonian passport" and "North Macedonian passport" would both be valid article titles. The title "North Macedonia passport" is bad English as long as we have not only one, but two possible adjectives. However, as long as each of the possible "X-ian passport" titles will unavoidably be targeted by POV editors, I see no reason to change the equally valid current title. If not for any other reason, just for the sake of (relatively) "peace in the world". --T*U (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• The English language cannot be dictated or limited by any bilateral agreements. The term "North Macedonian" is an absolutely valid term, linguistically, when referring to things related to the state, institutions, ranks, citizenship or passports. Since "Macedonian", is mostly an ethnic and cultural designation for the country's majority ethnic group, (but not the country as whole), it just isn't right to claim this to be the case, when it comes to state-related affairs. Therefore the terms "Passport of North Macedonia", or "North Macedonian Passport" or "North Macedonia's Passport" are terms that are in line with the rationale and the common practices in Wikipedia (albeit the 3rd one not really, but still it can be considered as a middle ground if none of the other options get enough support), and importantly, are valid English terms. "North Macedonia passport" isn't. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support - easy. Consistency reigns here; common name, natural, concise etc. all concur. Red Slash 04:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as well. Per my statement above. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support North Macedonian Passport as used for the passport of other countries. The passport of North Macedonia is North Macedonian as it belongs to all people of North Macedonia and not only to the ethnic group of Macedonians. Nikokiris (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.