This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Kosovo High‑importance Kumanovo Agreement is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Serbia High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It's unfortunate that somebody keeps on editwarring to add this. It's clearly a misuse of sources. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Why is this misuse of source? It is clearly notable and related. --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the paper? If so, please add some of the quotes, which according to you verify the edit. Btw I do expect the quotes within a reasonable amount of time, otherwise I'll remove the sock's edit and if it's added back without verification ask for admin intervention and full protection of the article, will have been disrupted.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, this traveling circus you two organised works perfectly. Please, see where else i contributed, and join to revert me. Disgraceful way to push POV. --WhiteWriter^speaks 00:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User's account no longer exists.^

Will you add some of the quotes that according to you verify the edit or not?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Zjarri, burden is on you, and not on me, as you support removal of sources that, "according to me", verify edit. No, i will not play this shameful game with two of you. --WhiteWriter^speaks 00:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia editors do not verify edits. Wikipedia users do not meet WP:CITE requirements. Edits are verified by reliable and verifiable sources. Also, as I understand it, edits that have good faith edits, or edits that may be contentious, should be discussed and not removed on sight. In this case, a verifiable source was given, so I think removal on sight, without prior discussion, was possibly improper. If the quote given was accurate (which I don't think I checked), and it contributed to the article, then I thinked the removal without prior discussion was likely improper, and I say the removal (reversion?) should itself be reverted.

Was the source verifiable and reliable, and the quote authentic and contributive? Yes, I think so, so the a priori removal was improper and the material should be re-added immediately, noting it is being challenged. And then the discussion can begin about why someone wants it removed.

So... why did who object to what exactly? Int21h (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Referenced source: "... the Kumanovo Agreement, is dubious under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and, as a consequence, so too are parts of Resolution1244 referring, implicitly or explicitly, to paragraph 10 of Annex 2 of the same resolution."
• Other sources "Given that the suspension of the NATO bombing campaign was conditioned upon the fulfilment of the treaties conditions, the conclusion of the Kumanovo Agreement was procured by unauthorized force, the lawfulness of which is highly disputed" - p. 892 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary - Oliver Dörr, Kirsten Schmalenbach;
• Article: "Some legal academics have argued that the Kumanovo Agreement "is dubious under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and, as a consequence, so too are parts of Resolution 1244 referring, implicitly or explicitly, to paragraph 10 of Annex 2 of the same resolution."

Yes, the source is verifiable, reliable, and the quote authentic and contributive. I will return referenced assertion removed by Bobrayner.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i didnt expect this. But article is now protected. If anyone of you is actually interested in dispute resolution instead of edit warring, talk now, and DONT WAIT until protection is over, just to revert again without agreement, as Bobrayner do all the time. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granted that the source exists and is accurately cited, I shall not remove it. But given that any agreement which ends an armed conflict is likely to reflect the coercive powers of the parties to the conflict, it follows from the source's argument that all peace settlements are legally void, and that we should therefore ignore the German and Japanese Instruments of Surrender and return to the Second World War. I suggest this argument belongs in a separate article on how sublimely silly some academic international lawyers can be. Incidentally, France and Norway have not signed the VCLT and the USA has not ratified it, so I can't see how NATO could be subject to it.Markd999 (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am against your suggestion to remove very important assertions about the subject of this article (supported by many reliable sources on this subject) under excuse that it "belongs in a separate article on how sublimely silly some academic international lawyers can be".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kumanovo Agreement → Kumanovo agreement – As the previous RM support stated, "Kumanovo agreement" seems to be more widely used in sources. Not a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per common name, n-grams now show 5-1 uppercased. A proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Randy, that's not even its name, much less proper name. Up until the time that Wikipedia adopted the term in 2011, it was still quite commonly lowercase in book n-grams. This amount of capitalized usage does not make it a proper name. Proper names show up in n-grams as pretty much always capitalized, as you well know. Dicklyon (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Common nicknames become proper names when uppercased to this extent (5-1). This is similar to the Dayton Accords/Dayton Agreement, which also is a nickname that, over time, becomes the accepted proper name of the event. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As a general/blanket argument, that only pertains when something doesn't have a proper name and a descriptive appellation comes to be taken as one over time. But this already had and still has a proper name, the Military Technical Agreement (in longer form the Military Technical Agreement between ... [yadda yadda yadda]). So the question before us is whether this term, in capitalized form, has become effectively a second proper name, and that can only be determined by close examination of actual source materials, looking at their mid-sentence (not title-case titles and heading) usage. Google Ngrams are useless for this. The simplest way to do it in most cases that don't devolve to pop-culture chaff will be Google Scholar and Internet Archive Scholar searches, both of which provide snapshots of a lot of in-context usage. IA's is presently screwed up by them changing how their URLs work to no longer include the search strings (something I've complained to them strenuously about). So, if you want that one, you have to go to scholar.archive.org and manually search for "Kumanovo Agreement". The GS search results are here: [1]. This overall search already shows the vast majority of uses capitalized, and the capping rate goes up if you constrain the results to 2020+ [2]. I thus lean oppose in this case, because the caps usage is about the 90%+ rate we consider "consistent" for MOS:CAPS / WP:NCCAPS purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢   23:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, and hopefully the closer won't miss your oppose opinion. As they take responsibility for the direction of an article I'm still somewhat surprised that many closers do not carefully read the entire discussion to form a coherent pattern. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Randy, on the "Dayton" comparison, notice that those were over 80% uppercase for quite a few years before Wikipedia adopted them as capitalized. The present situation is very different. This one reached 80% only after years of being over-capitalized on Wikipedia. We're supposed to follow, not lead. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your entire statement echoes much of your nomination and both have nothing to do with RM discussions. How or why something became currently uppercased is guesswork and tryinmg to bring personal opinion into what is being decided here. "Kumanovo Agreement" is uppercased in the vast majority of mentions and unarguably one of the two common sense proper names for this event. That you believe that this has occurred because of Wikipedia - a tangential toothpaste-back-in-the-tube crystal ball reasoning - is totally irrelevant here. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I totally disagree. If Wikipedia made a mistake in over-capitalizing some years ago, and the capitalization in sources is still short of "consistent", then it's not too late to fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Imaginary reasons. You can make up any reason you want why something is uppercased in 80-90% of sources, the only relevant fact is that it is. And "...it's not too late to fix it" edges way into something which should be covered by a rule or two somewhere but I'm not lawyerly enough to know which ones. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is not the formal name of the agreement that would be written in title case but a shortened descriptive name for the agreement that was signed in Kumanovo that we see capped in sources for emphasis, significance or importance. Per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we don't do that. The lead of MOS:CAPS makes SIGNIFCAPS an exception for specific cases discussed below. WP:NCCAPS is invoked by WP:LOWERCASE at WP:AT: For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. Proper names are always capped and if it is not always capped (or effectivly so) in sources it is not a proper name. The ngram evidence cannot be contexturalised for prose by adding words that follow "Kumanovo agreement" in prose (see here) and adding "the" to the search does not eliminate reasonably expected uses of title case in references (see here). The most recent result in the raw ngram (per Randy here) shows 85% capitalisation, without allowance for expected title case usage. We also see a good deal of random variation. Smoothing is used to reduce the effect and "average out" such random variations. Even a very modest increase in smoothing to four (from the default of three) gives a markedly different result (here), reducing capitalisation to 76%. In both cases, this is quite a way from being always capitalised in sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  85% capitalisation, even twisted into 76% capitalisation, means one thing: uppercasing is correct. It is by far the event's most recognizable name in English. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Kumanovo Agreement and Kumanovo agreement are equally recognisable. It is not necessary to cap this. It is not a proper name that we should cap per NCCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]