Talk:2019 North Macedonian presidential election

Thanks @Number 57: for clarifying that an absolute majority of registered voters, and not only of valid votes, is required for a candidate to win in the first round. The turnout quorum of the second round, however, has contradicting sources. The one linked clearly state it is 40 %, yet when checking it up it seem article 81 of the constitution state "The second round takes place within 14 days of the termination of voting in the first round. A candidate is elected President if he/she wins a majority of the votes of those who voted, provided more than half of the registered voters voted.". Either the source is wrong, or the constitution at Wipo is outdated. And I can't seem to find info clearing it up. --Aréat (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Aréat: I guess we should go with the constitution (the 50% figure is on the version on the parliament website. I'll update the article. Number 57 12:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Aréat: An update on this – the constitution was updated to reduce it to 40%. Bizarrely rather than change the wording of the relevant article, they just tack it on the end as an amendment (XXXI in this case). Number 57 11:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nice find, that explain it all. It was passed on 9 January 2009 by 86 deputies (the rest being absent) [1]. --Aréat (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Using the term "North Macedonian" will be considered as an act of vandalism as it is contrary to the constitution of North Macedonia and the Prespa agreement. In accordance to the Prespa agreement the adjective 'Macedonian' can still be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti political shills (talk • contribs) 08:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Anti political shills: on Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning referring to intentionally disruptive edits, so be careful of how you use the term. Wikipedia is also not bound by the Prespa Agreement or the constitution of North Macedonia. There is a recently-closed discussion relating to the matter at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC, and a rationale outlining the consensus reached is imminent. Best keep it at the current title until the rationale is posted. – Teratix ₵ 09:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I suggest following the results from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/2019_RFC which were recently announced. I doubt an election is public "entity", therefore the next best option is to use the basis of nationality which was concluded to be 'Macedonian' without qualifiers. Anti political shills —Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm very confused how you can conclude that an election is anything but a state-associated entity. I'm also confused how you can you conclude the adjective regarding nationality was determined to be 'Macedonian' when the statement actually read 'the closing panel finds no consensus to adopt a mandatory rule for how to refer to people from North Macedonia.' – Teratix ₵ 12:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

while there was no consensus, it was explicitly stated; "therefore, use of "Macedonian(s)" to refer to people from North Macedonia should not be changed to "North Macedonian(s)" universally. However, the closing panel does find a consensus that "North Macedonian(s)" may be used in particular cases where necessary to avoid ambiguity or confusion; for example, in articles or sections of articles that discuss both Macedonians as a nationality and Macedonians as an ethnicity." An election is tied to nationality and citizenship. I also suggest, If you want to pursue the "North Macedonian" title a footnote or equivalent is required that specifies the term "North Macedonian" is due to the prespa agreement. Anti political shills —Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is no ambiguity here. An election is a state-associated entity. 'North Macedonian' is the term. – Teratix ₵ 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Now here's a challenge for you. I am on Wikibreak for the next week, so I will not be able to revert any changes you make to the title. However, I will remain an editor who has expressed reasonable opposition to the proposed move. Your challenge is to not unilaterally move the article while I'm away but instead convince other editors on this talk page that the proposed move should be implemented. If none appear, try asking at a more centralised venue such as WikiProject North Macedonia or start a formal request for a move. – Teratix ₵ 12:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The current title (which the infobox should match) is appropriate IMO. Number 57 13:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The correct implementation of Prespa agreement is necessary, here is two possible correct forms fo the title, first one is 2019 Macedonian presidential elections and the second one is Presidential elections in North Macedonia in 2019, both are correct under the Prespa agreement. BorchePetkovski (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not bound by the Prespa agreement. Number 57 18:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please change this disrespectful title for Macedonian people! The correct form would be Macedonian elections or Elections in North Macedonia, this title North Macedonian is truly disrespectful and against Prespa agreement and frendship between people in the Balkans! This is Wikipedia and the informations here must be correct! BorchePetkovski (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

And if wikipedia is not bound with the prespa agreement then from where this uncorrect title was chosen? This is try for using the new name from prespa agreement in uncorrect and disrespectful way!!! Stop with this cultural GENOCIDE of Macedonians! We exist, we was Macedonians, we are Macedonians and we would be Macedonians! BorchePetkovski (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here is the UN terminology and in adjectives is clearly written, Macedonian or of North Macedonia... There is nothing such as North Macedonian... This must be respect! https://unterm.un.org/UNTERM/Display/Record/UNHQ/NA/1c98d616-3b6a-4d15-a7cb-f88c7f988b83 BorchePetkovski (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The UN also do not use South Korea/South Korean, should we also stop using them? The people of the Republic of Korea may also think those terms to be disrespectful.(e.g.2020 South Korean legislative election https://unterm.un.org/UNTERM/Display/Record/UNHQ/NA/5473bc2f-d634-4699-a8c2-84cb1fa7d434 --203.218.74.168 (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You can't put uncorrect things in wikipedia... Under Prespa agreement the title is uncorrect! Under the constitution of North Macedonia is also uncorrect! Under the wilness of Macedonians is also uncorrect! Only for few greek Wikipedia administrators is correct! This is ridiculous! With this logic i can write everything on Wikipedia which is my opinion and willnes without facts and evidences as you... BorchePetkovski (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

2019 North Macedonian presidential election is not corectly written, corect form is 2019 Macedonian presidential elections, becouse in North Macedonia are living Macedonians. BorchePetkovski (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

See the above discussion and the recent request for comment regarding Macedonian naming conventions, which concluded "North Macedonian" should be used for entities associated with the state. – Teratix ₵ 01:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thats not true just read the Prespa agreement, there is onli two correct forms

1. Macedonian elections
2. Elections in North Macedonia

This tittle is uncorrect.. Stop with thia propaganda... And read the agreement... Don't use uncorrect formulations, this is not in the agreement... Change the title! BorchePetkovski (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

As you have already been told, Wikipedia is not bound by the Prespa agreement. – Teratix ₵ 23:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You can't put uncorrect things in wikipedia... Under Prespa agreement the title is uncorrect! Under the constitution of North Macedonia is also uncorrect! Under the wilness of Macedonians is also uncorrect! Only for few greek Wikipedia administrators is correct! This is ridiculous! With this logic i can write everything on Wikipedia which is my opinion and willnes without facts and evidences as you... BorchePetkovski (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Since the nomination of the candidates, several opinion polls have been conducted. The percentages of the polls below are related to only those voters who declared that they would vote for a certain candidate.

First round

Second round

Please add the existing opinion polls for the elections (which I already added them on the talk page), because I think it is useful for analysis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_North_Macedonian_presidential_election#Opinion_polls NewForceMK (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Already done NiciVampireHeart 22:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You can't put uncorrect things in wikipedia... Under Prespa agreement the title is uncorrect! Under the constitution of North Macedonia is also uncorrect! Under the wilness of Macedonians is also uncorrect! Only for few greek Wikipedia administrators is correct! This is ridiculous! With this logic i can write everything on Wikipedia which is my opinion and willnes without facts and evidences as you... BorchePetkovski (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not bound by the Prespa agreement nor the North Macedonian constitution. Number 57 22:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

So if wikipedia is not bound by the terms of Prespa agreement, from where is the term North Macedonian? There is no such a thing... There is only Macedonian... What's wrong with you... Stop with this... This tittle is incorrect by the terms of Prespa... Stop with this ! BorchePetkovski (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

From common English usage – sources like Reuters, Xinhua. Number 57 10:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:MOSMAC (Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether.) this article needs to be moved to "2019 North Macedonia presidential election". I guess that would be the best article title that will respect both WP:MOSMAC and the unofficial convention that is used with election article titles. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Current title complies with both the naming conventions for elections (Date [adjectival form of country name] type election/referendum) and the recent RfC, which concluded either "North Macedonian" or "of North Macedonia" should be used for state-associated entities where a similar form would be used for other countries. – Teratix ₵ 13:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I must say though, it is very refreshing to have someone propose a move and actually cite Wikipedia guidelines. – Teratix ₵ 13:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

As per Teratix, the RfC concluded that "North Macedonian" should be used for state-associated and other public entities, a category that this falls into. Therefore the current title is correct. Also worth noting that the convention for article titles is not unofficial, it is a formal guideline. Number 57 16:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I was part of the WP:MOSMAC RfC process from the draft phase so, I'm well aware of what has been decided. It is not true that "North Macedonian" should be used instead of "of North Macedonia" as both were consensually voted. Since the official (nor the most common) adjectival form of "North Macedonia" is not "North Macedonian" and reliable sources have been using both "Macedonian" (slightly more, see example) and "North Macedonian" (with international organizations/big news agencies actually avoiding the adjectival use and preferring the possessive form "North Macedonia's") it stands to reason that the most neutral position would be to avoid "North Macedonian" or "Macedonian" in article titles about state-associated entities. "North Macedonian" is allowed in text. This is precisely what WP:MOSMAC says - and it is also a formal guideline. It has been the case with 2016 United Kingdom local elections (not 2016 British local elections), and 2019 United States gubernatorial elections (not 2019 American gubernatorial elections). --FlavrSavr (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The British and American articles really need moving to the correct titles, as I'm sick of them being used to justify the use of flawed titles elsewhere. The grounds for using US and UK rather than the adjectival forms was highly dubious in both cases (from memory, they were that "American" is ambiguous and British can't be used to cover something that includes Northern Ireland), but unfortunately they've been used for so long that it's probably almost impossible to persuade people to move them. As far as I'm concerned, their use are not justifications for using another flawed title here, nor can I see a neutrality issue with using North Macedonian. Number 57 20:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The flawed title is the current one, which was created (or moved) without respecting the previous WP:MOSMAC or letting the RfC process finish. Now it is contradicting the current WP:MOSMAC. While I realize that Wikipedia is not bound by the Prespa agreement, UN terminology etc. until (if) "North Macedonian" really becomes at least the most common adjective (it will never be official), it is not WP:NPOV to favor it over more neutral expressions. I really don't understand the insistence on it in an article title as it is clearly controversial (or if you prefer, it is still controversial). This notion was carried in the RfC even by most of those who voted for the "North Macedonian" or "of North Macedonia" option. --FlavrSavr (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe it is controversial (and certainly not "clearly controversial"), as the RfC was pretty clear: 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. Number 57 20:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is no RfC where "North Macedonian" is preferred to "of North Macedonia" or that it should be used in article titles (see the Other adjectival use question which explicitly mentions 'article titles' and which ended with no-consensus). Also I'm not sure why you're referring to the RfC when you have an actual policy in place which was derived from the same RfC. The actual policy clearly states that Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. and specifies in which cases "North Macedonian" may be used. --FlavrSavr (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Then whoever has formulated the policy has ignored the outcome of the RfC. Perhaps this needs to be flagged up at WP:AN or somewhere, as it's not really acceptable for a clear outcome from a community discussion to be ignored when translating it into policy. Number 57 21:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I somehow missed seeing this provision of the proposal. This seems like some sort of "end run" around the entire rest of the policy, allowing partisan editors to insist on unnatural phrasing in just those places people are most likely to see them. --Khajidha (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Uhm, sorry Number 57 but that's a misplaced accusation. First of all, the draft RfC itself was sort of hastily brought up in a frenzy of "slap-North-everywhere" and the questions themselves could have been phrased better. I had objections with the timing and the fact that people were voting before, not after reliable sources weigh in. That being said, a lot of people have participated, voiced their opinions, discussed for over a month. This has been a very long, and thorough process. The consensus was then assessed by a panel of three editors who have provided us with a detailed consensus citing that the fact that public entities are being retitled per Prespa agreement, newer sources find "North Macedonia"-related terminology more common - no one really seriously debated that "North Macedonia - related" terminology will become more common, but that is not the same with "North Macedonian" being more common (which still is less common than "Macedonian"). Anyway, the panel did a serious work, but haven't really given us an actionable policy, so at some point Future Perfect at Sunrise (who is an admin with an outstanding experience in Macedonia related topics) and MJL (who has shown outstanding effort) stepped in with attempts to structure a policy. This was met with a lot of proposals from let's say both "sides" and a long long discussion developed in which Macedonian contributors (both from North Macedonia and Greece) have shown remarkable cooperation between themselves, which was met with even more proposals, rephrasings, from other contributors. The panel was aware of this discussion, and attempts have been made to involve even more editors - I'd describe it as sort of a miniature RfC. The sentence in question was proposed by me and inspired by Argean's and other comments in the RfC - this really was a no-brainer for most of us as it seems to be a natural and neutral resolution, and this wasn't opposed by anyone. For most of the cases it has a perfect rationale: it prevents editors to use the adjectival forms just to spite the Prespa agreement. In spirit, it is very WP:NPOV and also very accurate and it respects the consensus that "of North Macedonia" should be used. In this specific case, there are conflicting name conventions, but we couldn't have anticipated it with the best of our efforts. My point is that this has been an enormous effort by a large group of people so saying that whoever has formulated the policy has ignored the outcome of the RfC is just unfair. It isn't the perfect policy but probably more thought has been given to formulating WP:NCMAC than to WP:NCGAL (which I was unaware of until recently). --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:41o, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@FlavrSavr: I think you meant to ping Khajidha not number 57, right? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nope. Maybe I nested my comment the wrong way. :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see that now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Actually, on a second read through, I have become very concerned by Number 57's comments. The community was in no way ignored. I can confirm that the majority of those participants in both the drafting of the policies made several compromises due to this concern. Everything argued over was not what we wanted but what we understood the RFC to conclude the community wanted. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have to say I'm of two minds here. The sentence in question ("Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether") was not covered by the original RfC but was written into the draft unilaterally by MJL – certainly with the best of intentions. It wasn't discussed in any way during the following discussion round, as far as I remember. You could say we all acquiesced to it; I certainly must blame myself for having had some initial reservations about it but then failing to bring them up because I felt the principle somehow made sense. But on second thought, a rule that would enforce renamings of potentially massive numbers of articles and categories should probably have a stronger and clearer consensus behind it than what we have here. And if there are groups of articles where local editors consider adjectival titles preferable for WP:CONSISTENCY reasons, we definitely have a problem and I'm not sure at all we should treat that WP:NCMAC sentence as authoritative. Probably we should take this discussion back to the guideline talkpage though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It was discussed in the following discussions by me, Argean, and SilentResident I believe. And MJL didn't write it unilaterally, we proposed it. To me, it still makes perfect sense, but of course I don't intend to push it if it conflicts another naming convention. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I apologize, that part of the discussion then went right past me. Maybe similarly to how Khajidha missed it; there was so much debate at some point I really couldn't follow everything. The fundamental problem remains, I think; there's really not a broad enough and clear enough consensus for such far-reaching rule to override existing conventions elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looking at that talk page it seems there was very little discussion about the implications of the sentence in question, and it may have been lost in the flurry of post-RfC tweaks and proposals to create a workable guideline. Only a couple of editors voiced explicit support. Given it conflicts with the usual naming conventions for elections and possibly the RfC itself: State-associated and other public entities ... Both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. (my emphasis), I would say this part of the guideline should be subject to wider discussion before it's considered authoritative. – Teratix ₵ 12:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

When formulating the draft RfC, I think it was understood that the question about state-associated entities was about what to use in the article themselves, and the discussion in the RfC mostly revolves around that. The other adjectival usage question was more explicit and explicitly mentioned that it will impact article titles etc. This ended up in no consensus, but still, instead of defaulting to "Macedonian" (which was the previous NCMAC) or to use reliable sources in each and every case (the majority of which are "Macedonian") in the post-RfC discussion we decided on "North Macedonian upon first introduction". This was done to make NCMAC a workable policy. And no, I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong about NCMAC. The question of article titles was not mentioned in the state-associated entities question. Moreover, consensus is important but neutrality and verifiability are even more important - neither of which will be satisfied with favoring "North Macedonian" over "North Macedonia" at the moment. Also, I'd like to stress that while we're discussing the fundamental problems of NCMAC and consistency, it's actually WP:NCGAL that is ignored by a huge number of editors from the English-speaking community - like for example, 2016 United Kingdom local elections (instead of 2016 British local elections), and 2019 United States gubernatorial elections (instead of 2019 American gubernatorial elections). I can see the advantages of using the adjectival form of the country, but let's also recognize that sometimes this can create problems, as sometimes two or more adjectives are used for a country, and sometimes the adjectival form of the country is very uncommon in the English language (ex. the adjectival form of Botswana, is Batswana but still the article name is 2019 Botswana general election). In the case of North Macedonia the adjectival form is a point of contention. UN terminology stipulates that it is "of North Macedonia" (for state-associated entities) or "Macedonian" (for everything else), and majority of reliable sources use "Macedonian" over "North Macedonian" with the trend of avoiding adjectival usage in major news agencies. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

This entire guideline is wrong-headed from the start. As I said the only relevant part of the Prespa Agreement is that the country itself has agreed to be called North Macedonia and Greece has agreed to quit complaining. EVERYTHING else falls under basic English usage and grammar. In English, if we are talking about something from or related to the country "Whereveria" we say "Whereverian" (any exceptions to that need MASSIVE amounts of contrary usage to justify them). So, if the country is "North Macedonian", we don't need any guideline or outside example to say that we use "North Macedonian". It is not to "spite the Prespa Agreement" it is simply that the Prespa Agreement cannot legitimately control English usage and the drafters of said agreement should never have tried.--Khajidha (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It should be fairly easy then, to find that "North Macedonian" is used by more reliable sources than "Macedonian" or "North Macedonia's" after the name change. It isn't (or if you prefer, still isn't). Until a common terminology develops in RL, the best course is to remain neutral. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

As "North Macedonian" is simply a standard formation, we no more have to find it than we have to find evidence that "_____s" is the plural of "_____". --Khajidha (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

If I may chime in here again, I just wanted to point out that the sentence of the policy that we are debating at the moment came as a result of a discussion between Argean and FlavrSavr. This was notable to me because during the history of the our drafting the RFC, those two nearly always disagreed with one another. While drafting WP:MOSMAC3 (fun fact, this is the third iteration of WP:MOSMAC!), I did have to remove the use of adjectival forms can be avoided when possible (Diff) on request. I believe this was inherited from original proposal by Fut.Perf., but I could probably be wrong.

In my own view, the RFC gave us options on how to refer to North Macedonia-related public institutions, but I don't think this is at odds with that portion of MOSMAC in contention because the former does not necessarily refer to titles.

As to people not noticing the change, the first comment after I put forward my initial draft pertained to its inclusion. Kinda surprised no one noticed that? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I kind of want to hear from qedk who was apprised of that aforementioned removal. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

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. I believe the current statement of contention was a sort of WP:IAR exemption because there was no consensus but I can see how quickly that would lead to problems. It should be changed to a recommendation of sorts, because consensus overrides WP:IAR. From my reading of the RfC, entities were not dissociated from titles specifically by the community, so the consensus is still for "terms", hence, it can apply to titles. Finally, if two guidelines are conflicting, you should consider two things, which one is more specific — in this case, that would be NCMAC, given a specific "state-associated entities"-related guideline exists with consensus, and secondly, which one came into force most recently (also NCMAC). Hope that clears it up. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

While it is true that article titles were are not specifically excluded from the question, IMHO, even from the drafting of the RfC the people who were most involved in the debate assumed they are. The evidence is this: 1. all of the options in the question include "of North Macedonia"; 2. there's an additional comment on the question which stipulates that the possessive "North Macedonia's" may be used whenever possible (obviously that is possible only in text); 3. the other question about other adjectival usage explicitly mentions article titles; 4. the discussion in the RfC predominantly revolves around formulations within text and 5. the sentence in question emerged as an obvious, common sense solution in the post-RfC discussion and nobody objected to it, probably because (1-4). In addition, there's also a policy that article titles should be neutral, WP:NPOVTITLE and I don't believe we can safely say the current title of the article is neutral, as most of the reliable sources (still) don't use "North Macedonian" routinely and consistently. What the RfC concluded is that it is no longer accurate or neutral to refer to the state-related entities of North Macedonia as "Macedonian". --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

If my reading of this discussion is correct, everyone on the post-RfC drafting except you and Khajidha (Khajidha seems against MOSMAC as a whole, which I cannot explain) has admitted the statement somehow got through and/or that it is contentious. I, myself, do not mind IAR exemptions, but it must be secondary to the what the consensus established. Since, the LOCALCONSENSUS surrounding the inclusion of that singular sentence has certainly changed, either it should be removed, or reframed in a manner, where it doesn't sound like policy. And given, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS explicity states — Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale, this particular statement cannot be held above the policy formed at the behest of the community. With thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I missed the earlier discussion (@MJL: thanks for the ping), but I'm sensing some unnecessary confusion on that issue. This particular sentence was proposed by FlavrSavr to be added in Future Perfect at Sunrise's first draft and was never questioned by anybody until now. I agreed with the inclusion because this was always my position during the RfC. Now, I do understand that there is some questioning of the inclusion of this particular sentence, because it may contradict some other naming conventions, but I do not understand why the issue was never raised during the RfC, when I already explicitly proposed that particular rule, or post-RfC when FlavrSavr suggested the inclusion of that rule in the form of the discussed sentence. I absolutely agree with FlavrSavr's comment above about the circumstances that lead to the consensus in that particular question. During the RfC I realized too that the wording of the question was not specific enough, that's why I decided to be very detailed in my !vote. I don't see how and why the LOCALCONSENSUS has now changed, when this was an uncontested proposal every time it has been suggested so far. --Argean (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Argean: ^{I'm always glad to ping people}   In response to that last sentence, I don't think the local consensus has changed. We are currently on a different talk page whereas these discussions were all had at WT:MOSMAC3. At least Two users here were not privy to those debates, and thus we not "in" on the local consensus. With new perspectives comes new feedback and a more widespread consensus. It also means more of these walls of text, so I'm pretty sure everyone wins at the end of the day.
In regards to qedk's concerns, I never saw the inclusion of that sentence as an IAR addition but more-so an explanatory supplement to the panel's closure. Either way, we really can't downgrade provisions which use the term "should" and "is preferred" much more than they already are. From there we could only make the sentence say Article names, categories, and templates may avoid adjectival use altogether. which is kind of pointless as a recommendation. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MJL: You're absolutely right when you talk about a wider consensus, and the discussions in various pages will keep contributing to that consensus. That's exactly what Wikipedia represents anyway. There's a fundamental issue though imho that can't be ignored in all these discussions, and that is the profound lack of current consensus on the correct use of adjectives when referring to North Macedonia, not only within the community, but outside Wikipedia as well, and that is very clear when one tries to look at the RS currently. For that reason, the spirit of the emerging rough consensus during and post-RfC was avoid the use of adjectives as much as possible, until a clear new consensus emerges and we tried to depict that principle within the new guideline in the most detailed way as possible. My very strong personal opinion is that we shouldn't start making concessions to that principle, unless there's a justified common view in the community that we can reach a consensus on the aforementioned subject of adjective usage. --Argean (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely agree with Argean. Also, I find it funny how nobody *ever* questioned NCGAL or its implementation, although it is widely ignored by the English-speaking community. This seems to me like a systemic bias of sorts. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Argean and MJL: To note for posterity's sake, the post-RfC drafting was mostly done by FPaS and MJL, and with SilentResident, Argean, Khajidha, FlavrSavr chipping in. Now, if out of those we already have two editors (FPaS and Khajidha in contention, on different things), you cannot say that the LOCALCONSENSUS persists. Noting again, that Teratix and Number 57 do not see it as an accurate summarization as well. I do not mean to question it when you say that it's in good intent and that it's meant to prevent conflicts but what I am saying is, you cannot have it override community consensus, which in this case, was clear and not a LOCALCONSENSUS. I personally, do not think that the statement is not in the spirit of the RfC but what I think is that it is being misconstrued as something that holds as strictly as community-defined policy. And I think that to call it an explanatory supplement is probably right as well, as long as we know the policy that the RfC stands for. @FlavrSavr: A lot of Wikipedia policies contradict natural English, or strictly defined styles such as MLA/APA, that's a reflection of the bias that already persists in Wikipedia, just. For example, if you will see Talk:Chairperson, you will find an entire history of it being moved from gender-neutral terms to chairman and back again. To sum up my justification, I have no doubt that consensus can change, but if it's a LOCALCONSENSUS, it's best to treat it with a pinch of salt. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@QEDK: If I remember well enough Khajidha never assisted in post-RfC drafting (apologies if I'm mistaken) - GStojanov on the other hand provided some very valuable help. I'm not sure as well what FPaS eventually thinks about the inclusion of the sentence after all. As for the community consensus please allow me to disagree with the conclusion that there is clearly expressed consensus on the use of "North Macedonian" in titles of articles about state related entities or similar topics. The idea behind that particular question was -as FlavrSavr already explained- how we should replace the cumbersome formulation "of North Macedonia" when referring to such entities WITHIN text and the consensus was that "Macedonian" should not be used for that purpose. If the question was about the general use of terms I would support a different option and my support on the use of "North Macedonian" was based on the provision that this should not include article titles. Well, there is no reason to argue, since the problem lies in the actual formatting of the RfC, and many of the final provisions of the guideline could be better seen as explanatory supplements after all. --Argean (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think we can find a solution to this problem that is both compliant with WP:NCMAC and the naming conventions for elections. If we look at the second policy, in the policy description in point 6 there is an exception made for: 2007 Massachusetts's 5th congressional district special election. It is obviously needed because it is difficult to make an adjective of Massachusetts (Massachusettsian... ?). Why don't we utilize the same exception here and rename this article into: "2019 North Macedonia's presidential election". GStojanov (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Because that formation is horrifically non-English. And should be changed in the example given, as well. --Khajidha (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

That election title is as it is because the main subject is Massachusetts's 5th congressional district, and by-election article titles are of the format "Year + distict name + by/special election", e.g. 2019 Newport West by-election. Number 57 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

No worries, @Argean: if anything, we can arrive at a consensus and talk through the process. I think I might have mixed both of them up (not sure how). But as for the reading of the consensus, unfortunately, I have to disagree. The point is that a lot of the votes explicitly cited WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES, both of which are article title policies. If the general consensus among the participants was to not have it apply to "terms" and instead to certain specific situations, one of the closers would have documented that and closed it accordingly. If it was to be strictly "within text", there would have had to be consensus for that too, noting that by default, supporting a proposal is counted on the merit of you supporing the initial proposal. That's my reasoning of why it was closed and interpreted in the manner it is. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stevo Pendarovski (52366712245) (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply