Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NATO/Conventions

WT:NATOSTYLE

Macedonia

Besides spelling and dates, one of the main items I had hoped the NATO WikiProject could resolve was how to refer to the country north of Greece that is currently blocked from membership. NATO uses "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia¹" with a footnote that always points to "Turkey recognizes the Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name." Should we do this or adopt some compromise?--Patrick «» 05:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some current discussion about the country naming in Wikipedia in Talk:Macedonia#Article move; the country article is currently called simply Macedonia. Some more discussion material and proposed conventions are available in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) which seems to suggest using "Republic of Macedonia", but that should not be viewed as formal policy at this time. However, there is probably no need to use the entire FYROM phrase for Wikipedia purposes. Dl2000 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Greece and Turkey force NATO to deal with Macedonia in such an elaborate way doesn't mean that we should do the same. I think "Republic of Macedonia" or simply "Macedonia" is the way to go. Personally, I think using FYROM advances a Greek POV. Macedonia is in much more common usage and we should generally use the term in common usage. Cool3 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bring this up not because I'm partial to either use on Wikipedia. Personally, I think FYROM is deeply insulting. However, at WP:MOSMAC the recommendation regarding international organizations is to use whichever form they use. I'm not saying this is correct, and at the MOS it is specifically listed as "guidance." So as long as WP:NATO has a standard that I can reference when one side or the other tries to change it to reflect their viewpoint I'm happy. I don't expect any NATO page to ever refer to Macedonia the province, except in reference to the dispute itself.--Patrick «» 18:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps NATO-project articles can informally work with "Republic of Macedonia", given the limited guidance on this. Not sure if anything definitive should be mentioned on the Conventions page, at least until further progress is seen at places such as WP:MOSMAC. The suggested consensus here at least suggests that FYROM naming is too cumbersome a construct for Wikipedia's NATO articles. Dl2000 (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties of English

I think it's a bad idea to establish a standard variety of English for WP:NATO. NATO uses both varieties for its own purposes. The main page of the NATO website uses the spelling "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" (American). So far as I can tell, even projects like WP:ENGLAND don't specify which variant of English should be used. I see no compelling reason to standardize article about NATO or to recommend a style for new ones. I think it's far simpler to follow the existing policy, which is just to keep the spelling consistent within an article. Cool3 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENGLAND may not have specified the variant because this seems to be covered in the main policy. However, the section was updated to promote the general policy, with some background as to usage history. Dl2000 (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How you have it now sounds good to me, suggesting British when in doubt but leave it up to the article.--Patrick «» 18:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to adopt?

Seems discussion has settled a bit. Would it be appropriate to adopt the current initial content as the project conventions? Expansions can be expected anyway (e.g. will want guidelines on article names, categories). Dl2000 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is 60+ hours since this discussion was last updated. Therefore, taking a page from silence procedure, the current state of the conventions will be considered the initial WP:NATO style guidelines. Obviously, further discussion on expansions or changes can be made as the WikiProject develops (article naming could be developed further, for example, such as treatment of STANAGs, etc). Dl2000 (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it sounds fine. There are guidelines, so they don't have to consider every scenario. Again however, I would like some mention on Macedonia, even if it's just "See this decision elsewhere on Wikipedia."--Patrick «» 16:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the above discussion, and giving some thought to it, a new Places section was added with the general advice, plus a subsection on the ((FY)RO)Macedonia naming issue as flagged for continuing discussion. That seems to be the best way to approach it for now. Dl2000 (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia naming guideline established

An update to the (Former Yugoslav (Republic of)) Macedonia naming issue. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) is now established as a WP guideline. Looks like the country can simply be described as Macedonia, or where a formal country name is warranted, Republic of Macedonia. FYROM or similar wordings are generally discouraged. Given that this was established at Arbitration Committee, the section on Macedonia naming will be updated to remove the current discussion tag, and generally point to the guideline. Dl2000 (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]