Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 222: Line 222:
::::So there is no logic, only a bluff. Just like I thought. Cheers [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 17:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
::::So there is no logic, only a bluff. Just like I thought. Cheers [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 17:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::Do you think accusing someone of a bluff constitutes AFB? It was not a bluff, just a manner of speaking. My interpretation of your behavior, if I were to similarly stoop to AFB, would be that you have a personal gripe against people using the word "logic" in everyday language, outside of a strict definition, and you chose my comment to advertise this. Or perhaps you feel the need to try and show others to be less clever than yourself? Insecure of something my friend? It's not relevant to this discussion. [[User:Lesion|<font color="maroon">'''Lesion'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Lesion|<font color="maroon">''talk''</font>]]) 17:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::Do you think accusing someone of a bluff constitutes AFB? It was not a bluff, just a manner of speaking. My interpretation of your behavior, if I were to similarly stoop to AFB, would be that you have a personal gripe against people using the word "logic" in everyday language, outside of a strict definition, and you chose my comment to advertise this. Or perhaps you feel the need to try and show others to be less clever than yourself? Insecure of something my friend? It's not relevant to this discussion. [[User:Lesion|<font color="maroon">'''Lesion'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Lesion|<font color="maroon">''talk''</font>]]) 17:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::When there are no arguments and your bluff is called, resolve to personal attacks? Indeed nothing to do with the discussion. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 18:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:16, 24 August 2013

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Former good article nomineeGeorgia (country) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted

motto

what is source of motto?

Lopota incident

Hi, I'd like to show you the article that I'm continously editing for quite a long time. You might contribute to it, copyedit, create a Georgian version (I'm quite surprised there's none yet, just as how the whole story is totally ignored by practically all major English language media ever since the shootings ended), etc. --Niemti (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map

So a little revert war has broken out over the infobox map. Seems like some folks like the standard ortho projection (inset) map, but some like the standard flat map instead. Both are standard, but are used in different contexts. I prefer the ortho for Georgia (as at least two other editors do) because Georgia, while not a tiny nation, looks tiny, and its distinctive shape seems obscured, in the flat map. The ortho provides area context, as well as somewhat zoomed-in detail, simultaneously, and is therefore IMHO more informative overall. Because this is an encyclopedia, we should err on the side of more informative. If a map is "confusing", then we should discuss why that is so, and to whom that is so. Ortho projections are very commonly used by print and broadcast news, and so should not be unfamiliar to visiting readers. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem

@Chipmunkdavis: Why do you keep cutting out the anthem from the article? Explain yourself please. GeorgianJorjadze 08:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Template_talk:Infobox_country/Archive_8#Can_we_add_a_small_button_to_play_the_anthem.3F, the anthem box is a large obtrusive box that doesn't add a great deal to the article and extends an already overlong infobox. Any readers who want to listen to the national anthem can find it on the page dedicated to the national anthem. CMD (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis:And why isn't it removed on all countries then? Why is it that all other countries have anthem but Georgia should not? GeorgianJorjadze 10:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel inclined to go through every country article and remove it and in each case check the anthem article to make sure it is located there as well? It's not a small task. In the meantime, the focus here should be making this article better, and decreasing the clutter of the infobox, which is supposed to be a quick overview, seems like a good direction to take. CMD (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Answer my question please. Why do other countries have the anthems in their articles then? GeorgianJorjadze 12:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because editors have gone "oh look another country has this thing my country should have it too" and added them. CMD (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See what happened when I tried to take it out from United States. — Lfdder (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grim. That article is even longer than this one. CMD (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: CMD, explain me for god's sake why do you remove the anthem out of the article? I am not edit warring here, I am contributing only and you are not answering my question. Why in the world Georgia's anthem should be 'put out from the article or what? Put it back as it used to be. georgianJORJADZE 14:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What part of what I noted above didn't you understand? It's unnecessary clutter, much like WP:Flagcruft, but larger and more intrusive. I've even pointed you to a general conversation on the subject, here. I also suggest you comprehensively read WP:EW and WP:BRD. CMD (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: That is NOT the answer. ALL countries have the anthem in their own articles and why don't you remove them out? Aren't they "unnecessary clutter" there? How can your argument make any logic? All countries seem to have no problems with the anthems on Georgia does? georgianJORJADZE 14:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not "ALL countries" have large anthem boxes in the infoboxes on their mainpage. Australia for one. As I said above, it's a lot of time and effort to go through every country article, so I haven't. That doesn't mean they're not clutter there. This is, at any rate, an WP:Otherstuffexists argument. CMD (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: That's not an argument. MAJORITY of countries have and Australia has or not here is not important. All European, Asian etc. countries have them in their articles and why they are not the problem with any editors but only you? Are you the only source of knowledge here? Why do we even discuss such a simple fact here? Just put the anthem back. georgianJORJADZE 14:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against it too. — Lfdder (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? georgianJORJADZE 15:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not necessary — Lfdder (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@GJ: If you have read the link to the Infobox country discussion I've posted twice here, you can quite clearly see that, despite your hyperbole, myself and Lfdder are not the only editors who have this position. CMD (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: All right. Here is United States article. Go and remove their anthem and I'll see what comes out from that. georgianJORJADZE 16:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an argument that's not based on WP:Otherstuffexists, please elucidate it. If not, there's little to discuss. CMD (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Everything is now clear for me. You're cool and strong with the newbie wikipedians with less experience but you can do nothing with other more experienced users. I am sure your edit would be reverted back in a sec if you removed that anthem from US article. Now I know. georgianJORJADZE 17:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@GeorgianJorjadze: Let's calm down here, please. Debate the subject — it's OK to disagree (in a civil manner) with someone's position, but anything that even vaguely resembles a personal attack is out of bounds. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:OTHERSTUFF, and I also understand that a reader who is interested in hearing a country's national anthem can generally get to it without much difficulty (by clicking the name of the anthem). I also see a distinction here between visual material (like a national flag or coat of arms, or a map showing a country's location) and aural material.

However, I also think GeorgianJorjadze may have a valid point here. As long as some countries' articles (actually, quite a few as best I can tell) have an ogg link in their infoboxes, then including such a link (where available) in some country articles but not in others is random or arbitrary at best, and some readers and editors are sure to take an omission the wrong way and see it as violating WP:NPOV. As far as I can tell, the articles of all the countries surrounding Georgia (not counting the disputed regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) have audio links for their national anthems in their infoboxes, so (IMO) one really ought to be included for Georgia as well. Again, I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I don't believe it's a sufficiently strong argument by itself for refusing to include the audio link in this case.

The alternative, I suppose, would be to prohibit anthem audio links across the board and remove them from all country infoboxes. Such a move would, IMO, require a substantial consensus going far beyond the "Can we add a small button to play the anthem?" discussion from over a year ago — and I am absolutely NOT proposing that anyone should start removing anthem ogg links from individual country infoboxes en masse to make a point. Until and unless that sort of decision is made, I would support adding an audio link for Tavisupleba to the Georgia country infobox. However, I do not want to see either GJ or anyone else adding such a link without a clear consensus to do so (something which certainly does not exist now, and which may very possibly never exist). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have in the past been a some editors (I remember there being some IPs) who went around adding the oggs to a bunch of country infoboxes. I have no idea when they first appeared, or how they developed and spread, but they have ended up on most articles. They were never on all however, and there hasn't been a discussion to add them, although they have ended up on most articles and so became common fait accompli due to the self-reinforcing effect of becoming common. No editor has desired to make a point and en masse remove them, which is why I suppose they reached such saturation. I point to the discussion from a year ago because as far as I'm aware it's the only general one that's happened. I am a large fan of consistency, but I disagree we need to add in something the template was never designed to hold because it's on other articles. Without it there's no visual break (that keeps changing design) between the Anthem header and the name of the anthem, and the infobox cuts that much less into the Etymology section. Small points perhaps, but I don't see the inclusion as something that helps the reader learn about Georgia. CMD (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background. IMO, there needs to be a general policy decision on this, one way or the other. As long as inclusion of audio links is a de facto thing, neither officially approved nor officially banned, but subject to discussion / debate / argument on an individual basis, we're begging for disputes that could easily turn into nationalist edit warring (though please understand, I'm not by any means suggesting that is your motivation here). And as I indicated before, I don't accept the "Can we add a small button to play the anthem?" discussion from early 2012 as establishing a clear community consensus — we need something a lot bigger. I was thinking of starting an RfC discussion at Template talk:Infobox country; does this seem reasonable to you, or do you think some other venue would be preferable? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all the things that could promote nationalist edit warring, this seems one of the most baseless. Still, some sort of discussion would be useful. I agree the 2012 discussion isn't an amazing display of wide consensus, but it's all there has been to go on. The USA discussion is new, but seems to have petered out. I imagine an RfC would look similar to that discussion, and it would be useful to collect opinions somewhere central. I can't think of a better venue than the template talk page, if you intend to start one. CMD (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, these things don't always require a rational basis. Thanks for the feedback. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request for comments on the question of national anthem audio links in country infoboxes; see Template talk:Infobox country#RFC: Audio links to national anthems. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

– The rationale behind the proposed move is as follows:

  • Countries come first and regional entities second if not last. So countries should take precedent over sub-national, sub-regional units.
  • Georgia has its name Georgia way longer than the US State of Georgia which was just named in 18c after British monarch George II.
  • Georgia is way more important globally and has an impact on the rest of the world where US State of Georgia is just part of US and it does not.
  • Georgia is more read on wiki than US State of Georgia.
  • Georgia is UN member country.
  • Georgia has history of several millenniums.
  • Georgia has more UNESCO places than US State of Georgia.
  • And last Georgia is a sovereign, independent country and nation and US State of Georgia is just a region within US.
  • So because of this I suggest to move Georgia (country) to Georgia. Elockid (Talk) 13:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Posted on the behalf of GeorgianJorjadze. Note that I have no comment regarding the request. Elockid (Talk) 13:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It must be noted that the nominator, whose opinion of the matter is found immediately above this comment, has canvassed this discussion quite broadly. While the notification is neutral, I see no evidence that the list of editors selected for canvassing is. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the problem here? This issue should be solved once and for all. Current status-quo which is frozen up like this insulting way that an ancient nation and country has to have a text next to it like country is just unacceptable. Since when the regions became the important than the sovereign states? There is only ONE Georgia and it is the country where I am from. georgianJORJADZE 18:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Naming this article "Georgia (country)" is no more or less "insulting" than naming the other article "Georgia (U.S. state)". To most Americans and Canadians, "Georgia" means the US state, and references to "Georgia" (meaning your country) are simply not likely to be readily understood by those readers unless qualified in some way that would probably irritate you (e.g., "former Soviet Georgia"). If you were to do a comprehensive check of reliable sources in English which refer to "Georgia", I am quite confident that the majority of them would turn out to be references to the US state bearing that name — and per our Article Titles policy, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." You're just not going to be able to win a prestige contest on the basis of "your" Georgia being a country and "the other" Georgia being a political subdivision — a subdivision, BTW, which has twice the population and twice the land area of the country Georgia. So, meaning absolutely no disrespect here (and I think you know me well enough by now to understand that I am absolutely not inclined to show any disrespect to your country), I strongly believe the only workable solution here is to keep things as they are, with "Georgia" remaining as a disambiguation page. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rich, US State of Georgia has a fake name which is named after its colonial master from the UK. Georgia the country where I am from was on the planet earth quite some time not even comparing it to the US state of Georgia. It is as fake as Rome, Indiana. Why don't you rename the Italian city into Rome (Italian city) just because someone called the town in the US just by that name? What would you say if the State of Georgia was the Mexican State of Georgia in the United States of Mexico? I know and appreciate you as a user and have no doubt in your honesty but you should understand the cause I am talking about here. georgianJORJADZE 19:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the US state is no more "fake" than the name "Georgia" being applied to the country--which, in the native language is "Sakartvelo". "Georgia" is derived from what the Persians called it.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is an old story, which was one of my biggest Wikipedia worries back in the 2004-2006 era. Here's a question:

Are there some people who know that the country is called Georgia but who might speculate that the U.S. state has a name like West Carolina?? (For clarification, West Carolina is simply a name I'm using as an example of a name someone might speculate is the name of the U.S. state.) Georgia guy (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • While personally, as a European, I hear about the country more often than the US state, I am not certain that "Georgia is more read on wiki than US State of Georgia." Per the page view numbers, the page on the country has had 138,877 visits within the last month. The page on the U. S. State has had 170,364 visits within the same period. Dimadick (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No reason to change the system of disambiguation for these two equally important entities, which has worked for years. I think it is POV to consider a regional entity to be less important than a country, especially in Georgia's case where the US state outranks the country in area and population and has a larger economy than it.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. All of Elockid's GeorgianJorjadze's points have been considered before (except "Georgia has more UNESCO places than US State of Georgia", which is novel but not a criterion for primacy). The consensus is that there is simply no possible consensus as to a primary topic. As the proposal does not offer any reason to reconsider this consensus, we should stick to the present arrangement. I would note that the US state of Georgia has a history of several tens of millennia; it has not been called "Georgia" for all of that lengthy period, but neither has the country been called "Georgia" for millennia. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. This proposed move would not be appropriate without a clear showing that the unqualified name "Georgia" is used by most of the reliable English-language sources as meaning the country and not the US state — something which I do not believe a careful search of sources would in fact show. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Keep Georgia as the disambig page to spot incorrect links much easier. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would sooner move Georgia (country) to Sakartvelo. bd2412 T 17:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wouldn't mind such a move. I think it would solve future move battles here (though the US state would still suffer from such) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You chose to comment anonymously, so it is a bit hard to verify your statement.
My apologies - I wasn't logged in. - Neil (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite a strong accusation to make here, it is not impossible that many contributors, (from both sides of the discussion), have been asked to comment here. How do you know that only one side was canvassed? FFMG (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not hard to verify all the supports here are users notified by User:GeorgianJorjadze probably because of their previous vote in support. Somebody should go back and inform past oppose users as well to make this more fair. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I was notified by GeorgianJorjadze though I have consistently opposed moving in past discussions. Looking at his contributions in user talk namespace, I recognize several of the names as having opposed moves previously. older ≠ wiser 20:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I was notified even though I've never participated in any discussions of the subject whatsoever, as far as I can remember. I believe my only activity on this talk page was a notification that I'd proposed moving Georgia (U.S. state) to a different (but still disambiguated) title. I suspect that GeorgianJorjadze decided to notify everyone who'd edited this talk page recently and perhaps not-so-recently, and that's a great way to avoid votestacking while notifying a lot of people. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'd tend toward thinking that the country was more important than a state, even though a lot of people might disagree who are from the US. It's surely better that the link goes SOMEWHERE. Our American friends should just suck it up and deal with it! Wikidea 20:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The simple fact is that both topics are highly significant, and neither is itself deserving of the disambiguated title. You might say the same thing about Mercury. Chemical elements are the building blocks of everything, and much more significant than faraway planets! Humans have known the planet since time immemorial, while modern chemistry is a few centuries old! Etc. etc. etc. If I were US-biassed, I'd urge that the state be un-disambiguated. Propose that move, and I'll oppose it as strongly as I'm opposing this one. Finally, we had a similar discussion not long ago at Talk:Georgetown, Guyana. Going there and seeing the position that I advocated will enable you to understand my viewpoints/biasses more clearly. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no WP:primary topic. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A country is definitely more important than a subdivision of a country (US or not US, doesn't matter). --Երևանցի talk 23:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Orlady. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for two reasons. First, the state, as noted, has a larger population and economy than the nation, although the nation is more important in a Great Chain of Being. Second, having the unqualified link be a disambiguation will result in less confusion than a link that is meant to be to the state going to the nation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In testing a particular computer application, I verified that there could be two records for Georgia for the country and the state. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand what you mean, can you explain further? FFMG (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any references to support your statement? Or are you suggesting that because the Georgia State is better known in the US than the Country Georgia, the state should take some kind of preference? FFMG (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I agree with the proposer that nations are generally more important than regions, and notwithstanding that Georgia the country is somewhat more prominent in my own awareness than GA, USA, it clearly is not as dominant as the primary-topic policy requires. There is no implicit insult to Georgians; we have to deal with the consequences of this accident of onomastic history in the best interest of our readers—who seem about equally likely to be after information on either topic.—Odysseus1479 01:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I understand GeorgianJorjadze's patriotic frustration here, but there's just no way the country beats out the state in terms of how likely people are to search/link the term by a large enough margin to satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not on English Wikipedia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I will stipulate that in general, countries are more prevalent than regions and should be treated as such, but if nothing else, this is a case where ignoring all rules applies. The disambiguation page received 16,631 views last month, Georgia (country) received 158636 views last month, and Georgia (U.S. state) received 189716 views last month. My point in sharing these numbers is not to say that we should make decisions solely based off of them, but to share that it means the disambiguation page has worked, as it has about 10% the views of the other two pages ... people find what they are looking for and then go there, and those who type in Georgia make their choice and move on. This is precisely what is outlined in the guide on disambiguations. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Go Phightins! 01:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In terms of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines of disambiguating pages and determining primary topics, there has been no consensus that current internationally recognized countries should automatically take precedence over sub-national units like a U.S. state. The long-standing Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, and Macedonia (Greece) naming debates come to mind, where consensus felt is was best to leave Macedonia as a disambiguation page. The Georgia naming issue has also been long-standing, and it is also best to leave Georgia as a disambiguation page. If anything, the article should be renamed Republic of Georgia, similar to the consensus of both the heavily debated Republic of Macedonia and Republic of Ireland naming discussions. Furthermore, the traffic page stats Dimadick and Go Phightins! cited shows there is no page that is significantly more viewed than the others. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Although I also feel that countries are more prominent than states, people would be just as likely to search up the state as the country. It could also lead to issues regarding links. ZappaOMati 03:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it'd make much more sense to move the US state, since that place speaks English, and this one doesn't, so there's much more likely to be publications about the US state in English, thus being more prominent in English. But I'm not going to argue for renaming the state, though clearly it is more likely than the country (and larger, and more populous, and has more relevance in English) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Neither has an overwhelming advantage over the other, so disambiguation is best pbp 04:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Richwales and Orlady.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for all the reasons stated by the move proponents eventhough I think US users will definitely tip the scale the other way. Georgia, the country meets both of WP:PTOPIC 's criteria, it has especially long-term significance since the existence of that country predates the discovery of the American continent and its contributions to the history of the western Asia. As for the other criterion (usage), i believe that the current naming of the article is drawing away a lot of page views from it since the regular user will be searching for Georgia SPECIFICALLY and not Georgia (country). If the articles name would have been simply Georgia I believe it would have gotten more pageviews. -Eli+ 04:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Elie plus:, I have a question. You said that you believe if the country of Georgia had the article name Georgia that it would have more page views. Wouldn't by that same logic mean that if the the US state article was named Georgia that it would have more page views, because users would be searching for Georgia specifically and not Georgia (U.S. state)? GB fan 10:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with the nominator that the name 'Georgia' should be reserved primarily for the country. There are similar examples: Azerbaijan vs. Azerbaijan (Iran) and Luxembourg vs. Luxembourg (Belgium). Why should Georgia be treated any differently? Parishan (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because the US state of Georgia is far more likely to be a search or link target than either the Iranian province of Azerbaijan or the Belgian province of Luxembourg. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      A side point, not as important but one that most commentators don't seem to have noticed: US states are not actually comparable to sub-national units of most countries. They have much more autonomy, even a limited form of sovereignty. For example, almost all law regarding person-on-person crime in the US is at the state level. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Countries come first when the sources and other factors support it, and that is not the case here. There is no primary topic for the word "Georgia" in the English language. The move would create unnecessary problems with incoming wikilinks, as Lugnuts pointed out. The page views do not show that readers are looking for this topic over other uses at all, so I don't see it being the case that readers are looking for this topic more than others, nor is there any evidence that sources refer to this topic more than any others. There is no benefit to Wikipedia editors or readers to move this page to Georgia (in fact it creates unnecessary problems), and the current disambiguation policy does not support such a move. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 05:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: disambiguation ought to be based entirely on readers' interests. While page views can be manipulated, they show the American state holds somewhat more interest to readers of the English Wikipedia; the facts that it's been part of the English-speaking world for 280 years and has a larger population, land area, and economy than the Eurasian country are consistent with that. Status as an independent country ought not to matter, but—if Republic of Georgia (1861) is to be believed—the American state did experience a brief period of sovereignty. Of course 1961 isn't recent, is it? —rybec 07:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not yet I'm actually sitting in Georgia as I write this, but I'm not convinced per current useage that we should change this yet. When it comes to economy, population and encyclopaedic topics generally then the country's greater history and past land area make it a much bigger topic for an encyclopaedia than the state, only by comparing their current stats could you make a case for the state being more important than the country, but that would be an inappropriate way to evaluate encyclopaedic importance, and comparing one at its 14th century peak to the other today is not entirely practical. It would be relevant to compare populations if we were talking about democratic representation and economies if we were talking UN subscriptions, but we aren't so it isn't. However I'm saying not yet because I think we will be able to make a convincing case for this move in the future. Wikipedia currently has a huge institutional bias towards recentism, the technosphere and the anglosphere, we are working to resolve those biases and cultural shifts are helping us. Young Georgians are now taught English rather than Russian as their second language, and over the next few decades that will move Georgia to the edge of the anglosphere. Computers and especially home broadband may well be relatively rare in Georgia, but mobiles are becoming ubiquitous and if we crack mobile editing then we can expect a very different pattern of coverage and correspondingly useage. ϢereSpielChequers 07:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Philosophy and history aside, neither is clearly the primary topic in English, which is how we decide such things. — kwami (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've expanded the "move discussions in a nutshell" summary (at the top of this talk page) to mention the pro-move concern over US-centric bias and the anti-move concern over wikilinks to plain "Georgia" that need to be identified and disambiguated. I believe I have done this in a manner that fairly and accurately summarizes the two positions without favouring one or the other, but if people disagree with my wording here, the text in question is at Template:GeorgiaRMArchive. Please note that this summary template text absolutely must be strictly balanced and neutral, not favouring either side of the issue. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — disambiguation is best.  –
     – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 09:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I agree that the country is the primary meaning of "Georgia", with the state only secondary, I still feel there is much room for confusion among the en.wiki population. The worst option would be for Georgia to default to the state. My second favorite preference would be for Georgia to default to the country. But the best solution is the one we have; for Georgia to default to a disambiguation page. – Quadell (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I would personally Support that, in general, a country should be the primary topic if there's a subnational entity with the same name (we don't add "(country)" to Luxembourg and Niger because of Luxembourg (Belgium) and Niger (Nigeria)), I can understand that to English speakers, a U.S. state may be more well-known than an Asian country with less than half its area and population, seeing as over 60% of English speakers lives in the U.S.. SiBr4 (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, what do you mean by "over 60% of English speakers lives in the U.S."? Yes, the table says that the USA has more than twice the number of speakers than any other country, but India + Pakistan + Nigeria is 292 million, i.e. 25 million more than the USA. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per nom.--KoberTalk 12:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am neither European nor NorthAmerican (U.S.), so I come here without an agenda (and, for the record, I was not canvassed). It is, however, a fact that the bulk of editors in the English Wikipedia are from the U.S., thus a higher support for "oppose" would be natural, and must -of necessity- be considered when judging the responses. It is also interesting to note that a significant number of editors opposing the move are coming to the defense of Georgia (US state)...and, yet, a move (should the move being herein requested take place) wouldn't affect at all the title of the Georgia (US state) article.
It is incorrect to state that "Georgia is more read on wiki than US State of Georgia", just as it is incorrect to state that "Georgia (the US State) is more read on wiki than Country of Georgia". According to THIS and THIS, there is a greater number of hits (but arguably not significantly greater - as in a 2:1 ratio for instance) for hits to Georgia (US state) vs. hits to Georgia (country) (571,620 vs. 482,105, when I viewed it). Some 18% more readers looked at the US State article as readers who looked at the Country article and, to editorialize a bit, to me these figures, if correct, do not provide enough credence to the "primary topic" argument (when defined in terms of numbers): neither the US state nor the Country wins this popularity contest hands down. Statistically, there is just no clear "winner."
But ultimately, I Support the move because English Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia. I support it because its English readers, American or not, need to move away from the Americanization of the English Wikipedia and treat it as the universal encyclopedia that it is. English is not just an American languague, it is a universal language, and, on this basis, moving the article from Georgia (country) to Georgia is the right thing to do per our premier policy of policies: namely, WP:IAR. The disambiguation page, meanwhile, appears functional and fair the way it, and should not be modified. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Visitors to Georgia and Georgia (U.S. state) don't see any notice about this discussion, whereas those who view Georgia (country) do. Hence it is biased in favour of Georgia (country) as the primary topic.76.65.128.222 left notices on the other talk pages, but A neutral place to hold this discussion would have been at the disambiguation page. I see seven requests to declare Georgia (country) the primary topic, but none to make Georgia (U.S. state) the primary topic. Where's the Americanisation? —rybec 19:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't need to be any requests to make Georgia (U.S. state) the primary topic: that would be abnormal - it's the underdogs, and not those in power, the ones that could reasonably want any change. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
In fact, both this talk page and Talk:Georgia (U.S. state) have banners insisting that any move request should be held at Talk:Georgia - for precisely this reason. Nobody pays attention to the banners, though. It's hard to fault the nominator for ignoring what everyone else also ignores. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...for precisely this reason" - WP:SPECULATION, unless of course you added those banners yourself and you knew your own motives. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Oppose. My just-completed check of the 30-day page-view statistics showed 139,350 views for Georgia (country); 171,190 for Georgia (U.S. state). Clearly, there's no primary topic from the standpoint of usage, as described at WP:PTOPIC. It's difficult to come up with a corresponding number to test whether there's a PT from the long-term significance standpoint; but note the adverb in "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". One might argue that one topic or the other has more enduring notability and educational value, but there are reasonably strong arguments on both sides: length of history and national vs. sub-national entity for Tbilisi, and relative population and size of economy for Atlanta. The fact that neither side has all the good arguments means, to me, that there's no primary topic.
In addition, Orlady's point about casual Wikilinking of "Georgia" by US-based editors strikes me as dispositive. If we adopt this proposal, we're going to wind up with lots of people named Bubba described as living in the Caucusus. Ammodramus (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Wikipedia should reflect what people are looking for and strive to be useful. The current arrangement, with "Georgia" as a disambiguation page, makes the most sense, imo. -- Hux (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons given. The colony was named by the British after a British king, so it can hardly be called an "American" term. Rjensen (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As noted above, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the relevant guideline. It reads in part A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. That favours the country, which is what many other editors above have been getting at I think, perhaps not very clearly. The size of the two is not significantly different, and the usage statistics quoted are as you would expect, given the greater web prominence of the USA, and so aren't very helpful, but the significance criterion is relatively clear. Andrewa (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The US state has 3x the area of the country, 2x the population, 7x the GDP per capita (or 15x the GDP). That's not relatively the same -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree that the GDP figures are significantly different. So? Disagree that they have any relevance to the long-term significance in terms of the policy, are you suggesting that they do? (The GDP per capita figure is a particularly irrelevant statistic in this context.) The land area and population figures are not sufficiently different to have any bearing. When the US state applies for a seat on the UN, it may be a contest. But no time soon. (Georgia was the last of the formerly Soviet states to be admitted I think, on 31 July 1992.) Andrewa (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although it contributes to long-term significance, being part of the UN is not the determining factor in finding long-term significance by any means. UN status contributes towards significance, but so does population, size, economic considerations, or being a US state. Being part of the UN is significant, yes, but not so significant that it is the only consideration. Nobody is arguing that the country is not significant, only that in the English language it is not the primary topic associated with the word Georgia, which has no primary topic as defined by Wikipedia's definition. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 09:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree that UN membership is not the determining factor or the only consideration, it was just an example, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. My claim above is that a primary topic exists when all relevant factors are considered. But we do need to be selective in the indicators we consider, and rank them a bit. UN membership, being a US state, heritage listings, area, population and overall GDP are all important (as are others listed in other discussion), but GDP per capita has no relevance whatsoever in this case, nor in very many cases overall (it's hard to even see how it could be relevant unless it were notably high or low, which hasn't been suggested and is not the case). A similar healthy cynicism needs to be applied to much of the argument above. Andrewa (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm certainly not suggesting that being a US State is on the same level as being in the UN, only that if you look at overall significance, this topic isn't more "significant" than the US State, at least not to the point that it suggests a clear primary topic. I also agree with Capitalismojo about what the end result of determining a primary topic should be though. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 01:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As I understand the policy, our role here is not to decide which is more important (or has the greatest GDP, largest land mass and population, has a longer history, etc.) The goal and policy is to make it easy for Wikipedia readers world-wide to quickly and easily find the specific subject they are looking for, a goal which it seems the current naming achieves. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose per well stated reasoning above by User:Quadell, User:Nyttend, User:Orlady, and others.
    This issue is really about the issue of disambigulation and the frequency of incorrect linking. I see 15,394 page views in the last 30 days for Georgia. I notice there are currently four articles (James Beverly, Doug Stoner, Margaret Kaiser, Spencer Frye) incorrectly linked to Georgia instead of to the U.S. state. Having Georgia as the disambigulation entry makes it obvious when there is an incorrect entry.__SBaker43 (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Importance of both articles too closely matched to give either primacy. Setting either as most important will result in an everlasting POV debate. Keep the disambiguation page in place. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose Not even the slightest hint of a primary topic in either article. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the deciding issue should be how many hits each ultimately receives, and according to those there is a rough parity between people wanting to read about the state and those wanting to read about the country, so the current settup meshes with that. Should the percentage of readers seeking out the country increase greatly in the coming years, to the point it far outweighs searches for the country, then we could very well end up making the country the primary hit. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: In terms of volume of information, the country outweighs the state. - Francis Tyers · 09:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The only example of English Wikipedia! In Country articles, stated that the country is unnecessary. Already, it is specified U.S. state. This can be really humiliating for Georgians. Maurice07 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you mean that Georgia is currently the only country with a disambiguated name in all of English Wikipedia, is that correct? Good point if so, we should be consistent, shouldn't we? But I think if I were a Georgian I could find it funny rather than humiliating. For even more laughs, see what we make of state university, or outside of Wikipedia, perhaps ask why Kazakhstan has a country code top-level domain of .kz rather than .ka. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No idea what the OP meant, but it is not true to say there is no other country with a disambiguated name in all of English Wikipedia. Consider Macedonia, as well as Ireland or Congo, for example -- which although using natural language disambiguation are nonetheless disambiguated from what readers might expect to find at the simple name. older ≠ wiser 02:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposite While logically it is absolutely right that countries should have priorities over sub-national entities there is no denying that english-speaking sources will never permit, due to the natural American inherent bias, to give an edge on the issue. Also, Orlady's point on the problem of false positives is serious; and last of all, we have an enormous amount of regular North American readers, not so many Caucasian ones.Aldux (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not that convinced that it is logical that countries should have priority over subnational entities. If someone for example had decided to name the state California (pop 38 million) San Marino (pop 38 thousand) instead, it would not have been a priori logical that the small independent state would have priority over the state with 1000 times the inhabitants, economy and land surface. So giving the property "being a country" infinite weight might be somewhat over the top in this fictitious example.
In fact comparing Georgia state (pop 10 mill) with Georgia country (pop 5 mill), similar land area, with the US state having much more economy. So it seems the country fact of Georgia country does indeed weigh heavily, as without that it would be obvious which would have priority, and it would be the state.
While I am not happy with the American centrism on much of Wikipedia, in this case there are several logical arguments that would make it fair to put those two at a similar level of importance. Arnoutf (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you mean Caucasians as in people from the Caucasus ; otherwise a lot of your regular north american readers could also be called Caucasians, as in of white European ethnicity. Also, I am not aware of any "natural American inherent bias". A lot more countries than just USA speak english. It's the english language wikipedia, not the "United states of america wikipedia". The argument, "more north americans use the english wikipedia so we should give topics more closely related to the US priority" is not given any evidence here, and neither is it in the global spirit of the encyclopedia. Lesion (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Simple logic requires a set of assumptions that are not questioned, which combined result in an undeniable conclusion. Can you please give the assumptions that will stand scrutiny as well as the logical inference made to come at your conclusion (or if you can't refrain from claiming logic) Arnoutf (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... no? I'm afraid your just going to have to put up with me saying simple logic above, apologies =D Lesion (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no logic, only a bluff. Just like I thought. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think accusing someone of a bluff constitutes AFB? It was not a bluff, just a manner of speaking. My interpretation of your behavior, if I were to similarly stoop to AFB, would be that you have a personal gripe against people using the word "logic" in everyday language, outside of a strict definition, and you chose my comment to advertise this. Or perhaps you feel the need to try and show others to be less clever than yourself? Insecure of something my friend? It's not relevant to this discussion. Lesion (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When there are no arguments and your bluff is called, resolve to personal attacks? Indeed nothing to do with the discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F570026050
No tags for this post.