Talk:Georgia: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Georgia page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles Georgia (country) This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians 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.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles Georgia (U.S. state) This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia 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.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)... Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category. Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes Map : Wikipedia requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state) Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state) Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner. Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard

Discussions regarding the titles of the articles Georgia, Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state) should be held at Talk:Georgia.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Move logs: Georgia Georgia (country) Georgia (U.S. state) Discussions: RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Not moved, 19 August 2013, Discussion RM, Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia, U.S., Withdrawn, 24 July 2014, Discussion RM, Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia (state), Not moved, 23 November 2016, Discussion RM, Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia (American state), Not moved, 5 January 2018, Discussion RM, Georgia (U.S. state) → Georgia (state), Not moved, 6 April 2019, Discussion RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Not moved, 11 July 2021, Discussion RM, Georgia → Georgia (disambiguation), Procedural close, 17 January 2022, Discussion RM, Georgia → Georgia (disambiguation), Speedy close, 24 April 2022, Discussion RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Not moved, 29 September 2023, Discussion Older discussions: RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Opposed, 2003 RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, Opposed, 6 May 2004, Discussion (Poll) RM, Georgia (country) → Republic of Georgia, Opposed, 23 May 2005, Discussion RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, No consensus, 5 July 2006, Discussion RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, No consensus, 11 July 2007, Discussion RM, Georgia (country) → Georgia, No consensus, 15 March 2008, Discussion

The "Georgia" move discussions in a nutshell: On Wikipedia, the placing of a word in parentheses in the title of an article is primarily used as a method of disambiguation, with the parenthesised word usually being a set that the article's subject is a part of. The basic debate has been whether the Eurasian country should be the primary topic, and therefore does not need any parenthesised word in the title. Those in favor of such a move often argue that internationally recognised countries should take precedence over sub-national units like the U.S. state, though there are other suggested reasons for primary topic. Some proponents of a move have also argued that the current failure to recognize Georgia (the country) as the primary topic displays a U.S.-centric bias. Opponents of such a renaming note that under Wikipedia's guidelines, the primary topic can be determined based on which one is significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings as well as which one is more important or significant. They generally dispute that the U.S. state of Georgia is any less important; in fact, given the significantly greater size of its population, economy (especially its film industry), geographical area, and main airport, many argue the U.S. state is actually more important despite sharing some of its sovereignty with the United States federal government and not having a seat in the United Nations. They have also argued in the past that since the Eurasian country was (at the time of the above linked discussions) being actually slightly less searched for than the U.S. state, the former should not be the primary topic. Based on all of the foregoing factors, some contend the U.S. state should be the primary topic with no qualifier in its title. Some opponents have also argued that having Georgia as a disambiguation page is a better way to catch cases where an article contains wikilinks to the bare name "Georgia" that should be disambiguated.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

... and French speakers, and German speakers, and Greek speakers (who'd rather call Sakartvelo "Georgia" istead of the old Greek name "Iviria" (Iberia)) and so on. Basically there is a standard in all these languages, for a reason that I fail to understand to call Sakartvelo "Georgia". Why? Apart from considering St. George protector of Sakartvelo, Sakartvelo never made any claim that they are the "real" Georgia and not the US state. They basically accepted the international situation, in which their state is called "Georgia".

What they specifically DON'T like though is to be called Gruzins and their country Gruzinya using Russian words. So basically if US Georgians want to solve this, it's simple: English is your leanguage: stop calling Sakartvelo "Georgia" and start calling it "Sakartvelo". Why did you call it Georgia in the first place I find hard to imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. However, English WP needs to cater to English speaking Americans too :p The thing boils down to whether an English-speaking USA guy will recognize (or probably tolerate) Georgia as a country across the Atlantic. It seems not! 118.90.85.8 (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The country across the Atlantic is called Sakartvelo, as the user pointed out. Why would an American want to call it Georgia? Are we so vain that we now call other countries after US states? Hmm, the Greeks don't liek the country of Macedonia being called that, so let's call it Montana. And we can call, England - New New York, Germany can be Pensylvania, Sweden can be California, and so on. That way we won't be intolerant, and want to use the names in our country only for places in our country. Makes a lot of sense. - BilCat (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an American want to call it Georgia? Are we so vain that we now call other countries after US states?

Are you under the impression that this is the American Wikipedia? It's isn't. It's the English-language Wikipedia, and "Georgia" is the country's official English-language name. —David Levy 06:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you under the impression I'm so stupid as to not know that? Evidentlyv not so. And English is not the country's official language. If it were, you'd have a point. - BilCat (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I haven't questioned your intelligence, but I'm unaware of your degree of knowledge on this subject. You pondered "Why would an American want to call it Georgia?" and referred to the concept of "call[ing] other countries after US states," and that's what I'm addressing.

2. The language spoken in the country is irrelevant. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and the country is called "Georgia" in the English language. Our goal is to guide our readers to their intended destinations, and many people typing "Georgia" seek the country's article. —David Levy 07:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing a tongue-in-cheek response to the previous post. The user said, "The thing boils down to whether an English-speaking USA guy will recognize (or probably tolerate) Georgia as a country across the Atlantic. It seems not!" As an American, I have no problem with another country being called Georgia! - BilCat (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; thanks for clarifying. —David Levy 07:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. Their own English name for themselves is Georgia. See also their constitution (Article I: 'Georgia shall be the name of Georgia.') or the fact the suffix on all those websites is .ge. Relax. -LlywelynII (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Georgia's constitution in English? Yclept:Berr (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously a translation. I had expected it would be an official translation even if carrying no legal weight but it appears I was mistaken:

Text was provided by the Technical Information Institute “Techinform” which bears responsibility for the accuracy of the translation.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The weird thing is that the official name of the U.S. state isn't actually Georgia, but the State of Georgia. So we're disambiguating a country whose name is Georgia (in English & like Germany & Japan is different from the 'native' name) with an entity that isn't even officially called Georgia. The only other parallel AFAIK where a country has been disambiguated (but even in this case to an entity that actually has the same name) is Ireland, but that is a case where the name of the island and the country are intrinsically connected anyway as well as Ireland having an act describing the place as the Republic of Ireland. To disambiguate a country when another (major) place with the same name doesn't actually exist seems strange to me. 203.196.81.163 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The former British colony of Georgia has had that name in English since 1732. It was named after King George, the ruler of Hannover and the British Empire.

Until the country of Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008, very few English-speaking people worried too much about the existence of that country. A few were aware that it was where Joseph Stalin and Lavrentiy Beria came from; though most English-speaking people mistakenly thought that they were Russian. Georgia as a country is small and economically unimportant.

Logically Georgia, the long established former British colony is the major use of the name Georgia. The recently independent tiny country in the Caucasus would seem to be a minor use of the name Georgia.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very narrow perspective there. The Beatles were well enough educated to write a clever line about it when they created Back in the USSR. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "clever line" in Back in the U.S.S.R. was "and Georgia's always on my mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mind"", a reference to the US song Georgia on My Mind, and a pun on multiple meanings of Georgia: girl's name, the former British colony, and the place in the Caucasus.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The country existed about 700 years before the State of Georgia. Histories of countries are not erased prior to when they were colonized. The fact of the matter is a country called Georgia (in English) exists, a state called Georgia doesn't exist. Only the State of Georgia. In other words, there's a viable alternative to Georgia (U.S. State): The State of Georgia. This would be similar to the case of using Republic of Ireland (the official description of the country) to prevent a disambiguation. 203.196.81.163 (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about using an official name contradicts the overall Wikipedia policy stated at WP:COMMONNAME, that common names are preferred over official ones. IIRC, that was pointed out on the Ireland discussions, but consensus eventually was to have this compromise: separate articles on Ireland, the island, as the primary topic; one on the Republic of Ireland, the sovereign country; and a third article on Northern Ireland, the constituent country of the UK. The situation with Georgia is different because you do not have a common physical feature like the island of Ireland. Nor does it fully address all of the central issues about why Georgia should or should not remain a disambiguation page, or why or why not Georgia, the country, should become the primary topic. Only renaming Georgia (U.S. state) to something else still does not address one of the repeated central arguments about keeping Georgia a disambiguation page: there is no clear evidence that the Eurasian country is significantly more commonly searched for than the U.S. state. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"State of Georgia" is the official "formal" name of the state, but "Georgia" by itself is no less official, and appears that way on many official state and federal documents. Also, "State of Georgia" is not as viable as the IP thinks, as some have argued that the Eurasian country is also a "state"! - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is also another reason why we try to avoid ambiguous official names like "State of" because it could mean, especially in this case, either a U.S. state or a sovereign state. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While "state of Georgia" could mean the country, but it generally doens't. This slight possibility is no reason to change the redirect from Georgia (U.S. state) to this article. "State of Georgia" is the US state's formal official name, and that is not ambiguous. The country of Georgia's official name in English is just "Georgia". - BilCat (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the country's name is not "Republic of Georgia', or we could move the article to that title, and end this long-running dispute. It's simply "Georgia". Also, US state has a republican form of govenment per the US Constitution, so it could also be called the "republic of Georgia." :) - BilCat (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late here, but State of Georgia is not the name of the state, in the sense of a location. It's the name of the state, understood as a governmental entity.

That is to say, the State of Georgia might be a plaintiff or a defendant in a lawsuit or habeas proceeding. But if you're asking where Atlanta is, it's in Georgia, not in State of Georgia.

The same remarks apply to, as far as I know, all US states, with the exception of the ones that style themselves Commonwealth of; I think those are Massachusetts, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. For those, same remarks, mutatis mutandis. --Trovatore (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Feel free to edit this. Perhaps this section can be spun off to a subpage or the Georgia talk header? Also, can someone go through the "Substantial discussions" 1/11, 2/6, 2/14, 2/16 and the move proposals M4 and M5 and index them?)

References are in the format Archive no./section no. "M" stands for "Move discussion". Examples:

• "1/12" is archive 1, section 12
• "M4/5" is Move discussion 4, section 5

The enumeration of this list is not intended to indicate the strength or importance of the points but simply to make references to this list easier. Points may be repeated depending on the context in which they appear in the archive.

1. Pro country
   1. WP:CSB and "Georgia" in English (1/1 Irpen, Carl Kenner WP:CSB, 1/3, 1/4, 3/6 and talks about but does not mention WP:CSB, 3/4, M2 Joffeloff mentions WP:CSB), US centrism (1/13).
   2. WP:NC general audience: the US state is a specialist topic. (3/4)
   3. The Caucasian Georgia is a sovereign state/raises status of US state to sovereign state. (1/2, 3/4)
   4. English WP is out of step. (1/7)
   5. WP:IAR (2/12)
   6. Importance (M2 SJK)
   7. Pro-US side are holding this page to ransom (1/11)
2. Pro US state
   1. Economy, population etc. larger., country is obscure. (2/9, 3/1)
   2. "There would be no net benefit from the proposed move". (3/3)
   3. "Georgia" in English (1/3, 1/4, 1/11 The User Formerly, 3/6, 2/11), more US readers (1/1 StarryEyes, Raggaga, 4.89.243.64 and more)
   4. "On an English-language wikipedia, an English-language jurisdiction with a larger population should not be subservient to a country that has only been independent for 15 years and doesn't speak English. A disambiguation page is an appropriate compromise." (1/1 Kirjtc2)
3. Keep the dab page
   1. M2 Earthliberator
   2. WP:NPOV if both topics are of equal magnitude, WP shouldn't say which is more important. (1/2 radiojon, 1/11 zoney)
   3. Let users find what they are looking for (1/2)
4. Other (for either side or none)
   1. WP:STAT, Notability, traffic data, WP:GOOGLETEST (1/5, 1/11, 1/12, 2/5, 2/10, 2/11, 3/4). (WP:GOOGLETEST not explicitly mentioned on those pages.)
   2. "Georgia" in English. (1/1 raggaga, 1/3, 1/4, 1/15)
   3. WP:IAR (2/12)
   4. WP:NC titles not based on subjects' importance. (2/11 agrees, 2/14 disagrees, 3/4, 3/7)
   5. WP:PLACE (in general) (1/2)
   6. WP:PLACE and Comparable cases: Macedonia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Turkey, China, Formosa (compared with Argentina), San Marino, Azerbaijan. (1/1 Llundun, 1/17, 2/2, 3/6, 3/7, M2 Bkell et al. Luxembourg, Azerbaijan, WP:PLACE, 3/8 touched at 3/4)
   7. WP:NC common name. (3/6)
   8. WP:DAB is (just) a guideline. (2/14)
   9. Leave it as it is (2/13), dead horse. (3/6 talks about but does not mention WP:LETGO)
   10. The "correct name is just Georgia, so any additional text should clearly be disambiguation text" (M3 Michael Z)
   11. The choice is not a statement on the value of the two Georgias (M2 Sosomk)
   12. The country is indeed more important, but that doesn't mean that the country's page on WP should get priority naming (1/11)
5. Miscellaneous Wikipedia-dependent issues
   1. Hatnotes etc. (2/8)
   2. "[[Georgia (country)|]] is easier than [[Republic of Georgia|Georgia]]" (M3 Henrygb)
6. Substantial discussions 1/11 (particularly difficult), 2/6, 2/14, 2/16 No Consensus

As an aside, this debate has been going on for about five years now. 118.90.57.67 (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a clue how to interpret the above. Anyway, I'm now conviced it's time to propose that the state be the primary topic, as it clearly is. See the "Georgian" article on the state proof that even the Georgians accept it. - BilCat (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"References are in the format Archive no./section no.", e.g. "1/12" is archive 1, section 12. 118.90.111.248 (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just link to the sections? That would make it easier to use, wouldn't it? BilCat (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 118.90.111.248 (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! - BilCat (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is proving its worth already: the conversation below contains absolutely no new arguments :D. 10... 20... 30 GOTO 10 ! 118.90.38.95 (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments pro-country:

• Georgia is a sovereign state, that way it has more importance than a subdivision.
• Georgia has a 3000 year history, and it has been a nation much longer than the state.
• Historically, Georgia has been very important on world scale, unlike the state whose international importance has been tied to the overall importance of the United States.
• Georgia has more hits and page views than the state.
• Georgia would counter the Systemic Bias present in Wikipedia.

Arguments pro-state:

• Georgia is bigger and has more population.

Just placed my little piece of sand. --186.136.40.74 (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's pretty one-sided, typical of proponents of the country not actually called Georgia in it's own language, and typical of systemic anti-US bias. Laughable - BilCat (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Next, we'll have people from other countries telling Americans they can't call themselves Americans, cause it's also the name of a (double) continent they are from. Wait, they already do that! - BilCat (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Historically, Georgia has been very important on world scale" I'm just curious, 186.136.40.74, what exactly do you feel made Georgia so very important on a global scale??? As far as I can tell, Georgia's been something of a back-water for most of its history - at the margins of (and often a province of) larger empires and outside any of the major historical centers of civilization. 84.138.199.46 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and the state of Georgia has ever been such a dominant global power, has it? :) Please think in the best interest of the Wikipedia. Stats show that Georgia (country) is clearly more sought after than the state, and it should be made the primary topic. That's all we're here for, not to pass judgement on who is better than whom. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user was inquiring about the validity of a specific assertion. Even if there were absolutely no doubt that the country, rather than the state, should be the primary topic, there's nothing at all wrong with asking "Is this a true statement about the country's importance?" It must be very easy for you to make your decisions if you never question anything you're told. Propaniac (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace talk pages are not the appropriate venue to discuss arbitrary perceptions of "importance", nor are they an appropriate place to attack users. Please remain civil and on topic. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WACRH, nobody was being un-civil or off-topic or, by any stretch of the imagination, making a personal attack. Rather, the specific assertion that the country known in English as Georgia "has been very important on world scale" was called into question. This assertion was put forward as an argument for moving the country article here, so the validity of that statement is quite relevant. As far as I can tell though, nobody has yet put forth any evidence to support the idea of Georgia being "very important on world scale." 84.138.236.205 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Culture of Georgia spans 5000 years, and it is of utter imporance because of spreading christianity on the Caucasus and central Asia. Please read History of Georgia. However, how does the state of georgia been important at a world scale? --190.226.50.130 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above would be relevant if "subjects' importance" were included in our article name criteria (which it is not). —David Levy 20:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on which use of Georgia is the primary one. Hence this disambiguation page and years of debate, voting etc .. All the relevant (and not so relevant) arguments have been made, but apparently some folks dont bother to read the colored boxes on this page (above) to see the many move proposals and archived discussions, nor even the nutshell summary (above). So it's worth repeating what another editor quoted in Archive 3, from WP:DISAMBIG > WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic." PrBeacon (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I'm from the U.S. South. Everyone must remember that Wikipedia (even in the English language) is an international site; it should never favor one country over another. In my view, both the nation and the U.S. state have a rightful claim to primacy; since both nations and U.S. states are normally listed in Wikipedia without a modifier, IMO their claims are equal. (And even if the nation isn't called "Georgia" in its own language, that's nothing new; Germany is called "Deutschland" in German. The government calls itself "Georgia" in English, and unlike Burma & Macedonia there's no national or international naming dispute.) Though the nation is greater in terms of sovereign authority (thus it's properly listed first on the disambig page), the overall volume of U.S.-related traffic favors the state (even if the nation's page may have more traffic from time to time). Thus, the disambig page should be primary. --RBBrittain (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of 21 Feb 2010, wiki has 12776 articles linked to Georgia (country) and 23251 to Georgia (U.S. state). Via this. Google trends shows general English language usage isn't even close. Meanwhile, people seem to look at the Georgia (country) page more often (presumably because they're less familiar with it:) assuming [1] is a reliable source, you get

Georgia_(U.S._state) has been viewed 99243 times in 201001. This article ranked 3728 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org

Georgia_(country) has been viewed 130885 times in 201001. This article ranked 1934 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org

So, yeah, I'd say it's fair to say they're both very common and there's no primary topic. -LlywelynII (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost twice as many articles link to the state as to the country? All other factors being near equal, I'd say this is a clear tipping point in the state's favor as being the primary topic here. After all, the links in other articles are the main use of the article titles. Btw, the Google trends chart means absolutely nothing to me. Can you summarize? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the internal links are important, but all other factors aren't equal. There are good enough arguments on both sides. Repeated move requests and rejections count for something, like past consensus. PrBeacon (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree. No primary topic, so main article is a disambig page. The only reason it rankles is that the same logic is not applied to New York and Washington - clearly no primary topic exists there, but in those instances the "state trumps city because it's a higher order entity" folk win out - what's the difference between those cases and this? SteveRwanda (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but sometimes striving for consistency can be counterproductive. Another editor makes a strong case against having a disamb.page for New York: Talk:New_York/Archive_3#Lack_of_primary_topic_does_NOT_necessitate_a_disambiguation_page and I think the same would apply to Washington. Why it doesn't apply to this case (U.S. state & another country) is more subtle and, perhaps, subjective. PrBeacon (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming at this from a slightly different angle, the need for consistency across Wikipedia for naming conventions on nation-state articles. I have kicked off a discussion about it at the project page and would welcome views - my reaction to the bit in the header of this talk page about primacy is that it is wrong, because Georgia the country clearly rates higher than other Georgias and so this should trump sillinesses like Google search counts in a grown-up cyclopedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Georgia the country clearly rates higher than other Georgias" - thanks, feels nice to hear that although I know that it is not true. Georgia the state has the larger economy (by far), has more people, arguably its cultural, economic and political influence as a state is higher. Georgia the country has a longer written history, albeit it was usually at fringes of empires (unfortunately). Georgia the state has a shorter written history, but might have made more impact globally. What rates higher - the state or the country - is very subjective and depends entirely on the interests of the reader. Btw, the name of the country is Sakartvelo anyway and not Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.229.183 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is all. I can't be bothered to rehash the arguments for giving the country primary topic status, which have been made ad nauseum. I just think it is ridiculous that so many American editors of Wikipedia think the clash of names with their country's internal subdivision merits the demotion of an article on a country to a parenthesized title. I expected better. I say this not as some anti-American that many people reading this comment no doubt imagine me to be: I came to this article after reading about the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which I admire greatly and just used on a talk page to argue against an example of censorship on Wikipedia. To my dismay, I found that that article has a redirect from First Amendment (unqualified), as if no one else has amended their constitution. The other countries of the world are not really so important, I guess. Trust me: this kind of bias looks really amateurish and stupid. Wikipedia can do better than this! Terminal emulator (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't wish to rehash the arguments, why did you post the above (which adds nothing new to the proceedings)? —David Levy 18:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a piece of feedback from a disappointed reader, which ought to be a data point for Wikipedia editors considering what to do with this page. Terminal emulator (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how such commentary can accomplish anything other than reigniting arguments that have been thoroughly covered many times over. —David Levy 18:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last post on this topic because what I had to say has clearly gone in one ear and out the other. The point was that I, as a reader, think you editors have come to the wrong decision about this page, and wanted to tell you this as a piece of feedback that I hoped you would find somewhat useful. Evidently you don't consider it to be of much consequence and have made up your mind about the dispute. That's that then! Terminal emulator (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way about Wikipedia. The only thing that your commentary does is basically rehash one of the frequently raised arguments here that the title "Georgia (country)" with the disambiguating word in parentheses "demotes" that article and make it "less important". But the reality here on Wikipedia is that those who argue against that here, and those who did support that renaming of the First Amendment page, seem to want to strictly enforce the rules on Wikipedia:Disambiguation regarding primary topics - only topics that are highly likely -- much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined -- to be the subject being sought by readers should get titles with no disambiguating word in parentheses. To them, it is all about helping the reader to search and find topics when they use the search box. Issues about the perception that "topics are being demoted or promoted" by the parentheses in the article titles are irrelevant to them. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick; ok, "consensus" first. From the above it seems the last move proposal was in 2008; things may have moved on since then. I guess the principal argument is this: Georgia is a Member State of the United Nations (evidence here); the girl/drink/administrative division etc are not, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument has been addressed in the previous discussions. Do you have an argument that hasn't been addressed? If not, do you have evidence of a change (inside or outside Wikipedia) likely to result in a different outcome? —David Levy 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect; this argument has been aired in the previous discussions, but not yet addressed - hence the move request. Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "addressed"? Are you suggesting that the argument has been ignored? Others have responded to it by explaining why they disagree that it's a valid reason to move the article. —David Levy 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maculosae tegmine lyncis, your principle argument is just basically a rephrasing of previous argument that an internationally recognised country should take precedence over sub-national units like a U.S. state. And others have responded by saying that it is irrelevant, and it should instead be determined based on which one is significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings -- since there is no evidence that the Eurasian country is significantly more commonly searched for than the U.S. state, then the page on the former should not be moved. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waa, what have I done, seemingly stumbled into a nest of entrenched POV Warriors! So as not to get too bogged down in the war of attrition that seems to have claimed the above attempts, if, as seems to be being suggested, naming should be per current Wikipedia:Polices, then most relevant seem to be NPOV Naming, WP:BIAS, and most of all Disambiguation - Primary Topics: per the last, a topic may be "primary" by (1) Usage and (2) Long-term significance. If (1) needs to be addressed (apparently in certain instances - surely here - "only one sense of primacy is relevant"), the usurped (UN Member etc) does have more far page views (per User:Henrik's stats tool) than the pretender (the administrative division); and "web presence" may not always be the best guide to "long-term significance", otherwise Justin Bieber would apparently be more significant to the history of culture and civilization than the Athenian Democracy, etc. So, with (1) out the way, if we are agreed that (2) "Long-term significance" is here the key determinant, then:

From where I'm sitting, both are far off lands about which we know little; per the respective article pages, however, and for starters:

• one a UN Member State, the other not
• one with a written history of over two millenia, the other not
• one an important geo-political entity, fought over by rival powers from the Hittites in the second millenium BC to the Russians in 2008, the other not
• one a distinct culture, with its own language and script, the other not
• one with an architectural and artistic tradition recognised as of universal significance by UNESCO et al, the other not
• one with a musical tradition, of early polyphony, and other intangible heritage that is also recognized as of global important by UNESCO, the other not

Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there's no need for name-calling ("entrenched POV Warriors"). This implies that mere disagreement with your position is unreasonable. Likewise, your farcical photo comparison is needlessly insulting.

Secondly, you still aren't introducing any arguments not already addressed in previous discussions (the "war of attrition", as you call it, again implying that no response other than compliance with the move requests is reasonable).

The two criteria described at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which I helped to write, incidentally) are considered together. In this instance, neither establishes primacy for one of the "Georgia" topics.

Among our readers, the gap in usage is far too small.

The "long-term significance" criterion applies to instances in which one topic "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". This addition arose from situations such as the request to move Anne Hathaway (actress) to Anne Hathaway (based on her current prominence). It isn't intended to invite comparisons between multiple subjects with extremely high enduring notability and educational value. (And I'll note that you omitted population and economy from your list. Why is that?) —David Levy 16:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current population and economy vis-à-vis long-term significance: Wikipedia:Recentism (and possiblly Wikipedia:CRYSTAL), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're distorting the concept of recentism (much like you did the concept of long-term significance).

We use the terms "recent" and "short-term" in an absolute (not relative) sense. That one entity has existed for thousands of years doesn't mean that one existent for hundreds of years is recent or lacks long-term significance and endurance. The idea is to avoid assigning too much weight to contemporary (and possibly ephemeral) trends. —David Levy 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should this go to some wider vote amongst non-involved (ie non-US, non-Georgian editors) for consensus? Next you'll be telling me that Madonna does not lead straight to the Virgin Mother of our Lord. Otherwise, I just look forward to a boy band starting up called USA so that phenomenon gets relegated to a disambiguation page too... Guess the two of us won't be getting much further without others, but thanks anyway, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should this go to some wider vote amongst non-involved (ie non-US, non-Georgian editors) for consensus?

That isn't how Wikipedia works. All editors in good standing are welcome to participate in a discussion, bringing insights that those with different backgrounds and experiences might lack. Consensus is gauged based on the quality of the arguments presented, not by tallying votes. —David Levy 20:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]