This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
We're making this RM as easy and clear-cut as possible, to serve as a useful precedent for later RMs of this type. NLeeuw (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.Agent007 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I might add that there is a local consensus for article titles of this type to follow Form 4 when it concerns immigrants to the Americas or Oceania. For example, Fooian Americans: Fooian represent the country/region/identity etc. of origin, and Americans (generic: Barlanders) represents the country these Fooians have migrated to (if applicable) and currently live in.
On the other hand, there appears to be a rough local consensus (though not universally applied) to follow Form 1 (or Form 1b or 1c) when it concerns members of one group in a country in Europe or Asia where they currently do not constitute a majority. For example: Croats in Sweden. Croat represents the country/identity of origin, and in Sweden represents the country these Croats have migrated to and currently live in.
The article title Swedish Serbs conforms to neither convention. It suggests that is follows Form 4 (Fooian Americans), namely, that the people or their ancestors were born in Sweden, but now live in Serbia or its neighbouring region. Yet, the article Swedish Serbs shows that it is meant to be the other way around. Given that this is all in Europe, however, it is reasonable to change the article title to Form 1 (like Croats in Sweden). Hence the requested move. We decided to nominate Croats of Switzerland simultaneously for good measure. NLeeuw (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case of Croatia, we used this possessive/formal form 'of' for autochthonous minorities, but the less formal 'in' is more descriptive for immigrants. So it wouldn't be "Swiss of Croatia", but "Swiss in Croatia", and likewise "Croats in Switzerland". As long as you don't make a precedent that forces e.g. "Hungarians in Croatia", this is fine. --Joy (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation and support, @Joy! It really helps to know why Form 2 Fooians of Barland appears to exist mostly within the boundaries of former Yugoslavia, but not outside it. As stated in the pre-RM discussion, we do not intend to change titles of articles about groups living inside the boundaries of former Yugoslavia for the time being, that is, until we had a reason to think there might be a local consensus to use Form 2. You have just provided that reason. I suppose we could take the courtesy to extend this exemption for authochtonous minorities in Romania, such as Serbs of Romania, Croats of Romania, Ukrainians of Romania, Turks of Romania etc., but presumably not Chinese of Romania, Czechs of Romania? Where would we draw the line then? I was gonna say Armenians of Romania should be "in Romania" as well, until I read Armenians have been present in what are now the states of Romania and Moldova for over a millennium, and have been an important presence as traders since the 14th century. Then again, the infobox simply calls them Armenians in Romania anyway. How do we prevent this from becoming an arbitrary, POV distinction? NLeeuw (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Croatia there's a general knowledge which peoples are such, and there's an explicit list in the Constitution. The government has in turn perpetuated this in various laws, for example in order to allow for people to vote for a special quota of minority representatives at various levels. This has been in practice for several decades now, so I'm sure we can also find scholarly coverage and analysis (secondary sources). So that would be a fairly clear line in that case.
I know there's something similar in other countries, but each case would probably have to be verified. --Joy (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article 10: The Republic of Croatia shall safeguard the rights and interests of its citizens living or residing abroad, and shall promote their ties to their homeland. The Republic of Croatia shall guarantee particular care and protection to those parts of the Croatian nation in other countries.
Article 45 (relating to voters who do not have registered domicile in the Republic of Croatia)
Or maybe I'm getting it wrong, and I should be looking at the constitutions of other countries which specifically recognise "national minorities" within its borders? In the Constitution of Croatia, this is covered in the following preamble clause:
...the Republic of Croatia is hereby established as the nation state of the Croatian nation and the state of the members of its national minorities: Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Hungarians, Jews, Germans, Austrians, Ukrainians, Rusyns, Bosniaks, Slovenians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Russians, Bulgarians, Poles, Roma, Romanians, Turks, Vlachs, Albanians and others who are its citizens and who are guaranteed equality with citizens of Croatian nationality and the exercise of their national rights in accordance with the democratic norms of the United Nations and the countries of the free world.
Would this be the reason for article titles such as "Hungarians of Croatia" rather than "Hungarians in Croatia", because "Hungarians" are mentioned in this preamble to the Constitution of Croatia? That sort of makes sense. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. This placement is intentionally so early, in the definition of the state, to convey the importance. A practical confirmation of that is e.g. how whenever any wording was changed in this regard, that's been a political hot topic. --Joy (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note also there's a contentious exception to the local consensus described at Talk:Romani people in Croatia. Ironically, the person who proposed that move and then opposed moving it back is now banned, so I should probably get a new discussion going there. --Joy (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I happen to know a lot about the Belgian situation, where this has a strong territorial-administrative component limited to 9 municipalities. It has nothing to do with immigrants from Germany, for example, unless they either (a) relocate to one of those 9 municipalities, or (b) relocate elsewhere in Belgium, acquire citizenship and make use of their citizen's right to communicate with the federal government in the German language, for example. But in neither of those cases, it matters whether they previously lived in Germany or have German as their native language.
At any rate, the clarifications you have made are very helpful! I'm currently making an overview of which national minorities have been recognised in which countries. I'm somewhat concerned that this will result in an arbitrary patchwork that may violate WP:SYNTH, but we gotta start somewhere.
I've already found that the Constitution of Romania contains clauses pertaining to national minorities: Article 6.1, 6.2; Article 32.3; Article 62.2; Article 73.3r; Article 120.2; Article 128.2. The problem is that the Constitution never says which national minorities there are; those issues are dealt with in laws: constitutional, organic, and ordinary laws. E.g. Article 62.2 refers to "the electoral law". This can quickly become very complicated to track down for the mere sake of whether an article title should be "in Romania" or "of Romania". Then again, I have been so pedantic as to making this a point, so I guess it primarily falls to myself to figure that out. NLeeuw (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Constitution of Montenegro preamble: The determination that we, as free and equal citizens, members of peoples and national minorities who live in Montenegro: Montenegrins, Serbs, Bosniacs, Albanians, Muslims, Croats and the others, are committed to democratic and civic Montenegro;. It has additional articles 79 and 80 on minority nations and other minority national communities, although it is unclear what the difference between those two groups is. My two cents: "Montenegrins" are the "[majority?] people/nation", the other peoples mentioned in the preamble are "minority nations", and all other peoples not mentioned in the preamble are considered "other minority national communities" (which are probably treated as immigrants for all intents and purposes). But I have no idea; this is an unofficial English translation (with several errors), and there have probably been court cases over the interpretation of "Montenegrins" and "Serbs" in the preamble, given the controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Montenegro. (There certainly have been over Article 13). Census-statistically speaking, both self-identified Montenegrins and Serbs are "minorities" in Montenegro; so there might not actually be a "[majority?] people/nation", only Montenegrins constituting a census-statistical plurality. At any rate, I would say that any articles about Montenegrins, Serbs, Bosniacs, Albanians, Muslims, Croats in Montenegro should have of Montenegro in the title. NLeeuw (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[Preamble] Amendment IV.1 The citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, the Macedonian people, as well as citizens living within its borders who are part of the Albanian people, the Turkish people, the Vlach people, the Serbian people, the Romany people, the Bosniak people and others
[Article 78] Amendment XII.1 The Assembly shall establish a Committee for Inter-Community Relations. The Committee consists of 19 members of whom 7 members each are from the ranks of the Macedonians and Albanians within the Assembly, and a member each from among the Turks, Vlachs, Romas, Serbs and Bosniaks.
[Article 49] Amendment XXXVI (...) The Republic shall provide for the diaspora of the Macedonian people and of part of the Albanian people, Turkish people, Vlach people, Serbian people, Roma people, Bosniak people and others and shall foster and promote the ties with the fatherland. (...)
[Article 7] Amendment V This is about the official use of languages, setting 20% of inhabitants per municipality as the threshold for using it officially on the municipal level. However, there is no formal link between this article and the other "peoples" recognised in the Preamble and Articles 78, 49 and 7. Theoretically, as soon as 20.1% of Zrnovci Municipality are immigrants from Karakalpakstan speaking Karakalpak, that becomes an official municipal language in Zrnovci. But Karakalpaks presumably wouldn't become one of the "peoples".
The "peoples" which might deserve of North Macedonia are thus fixed to Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Roma(ni) (people), Serbs/Serbians, and Bosniaks. The article Montenegrins of North Macedonia (which I AfD'd yesterday) should, if kept, be renamed to Montenegrins in North Macedonia, as Montenegrins are not specifically recognised as a "people" by the Constitution of North Macedonia. It's possible that Montenegrins are subsumed under "Serbian people" or "Serbs", however, given the interpretation that the Montenegrin language is a regional variety of the Serbian language (which is, however, just one of 3 different linguistic interpretations). In that case, we might rename/rescope Serbs in North Macedonia to Serbs and Montenegrins in North Macedonia by analogy to Serbs and Montenegrins in Albania. NLeeuw (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NLeeuw (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
