Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Georgia (country)/Archive 7) (bot |
Giorgi Balakhadze (talk | contribs) →UN Georgia locator map: new section |
||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
The map does not include South Sudan, it needs to be updated. --[[User:WhyHellWhy|WhyHellWhy]] ([[User talk:WhyHellWhy|talk]]) 03:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
The map does not include South Sudan, it needs to be updated. --[[User:WhyHellWhy|WhyHellWhy]] ([[User talk:WhyHellWhy|talk]]) 03:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
== UN Georgia locator map == |
|||
In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_%28country%29&diff=608257309&oldid=608255476|this] case I think, that Wikipedia has no its own cartography school, and we may consider all maps in commons as wikipedia's, but still it's very obscure what means 'wikipedia's map'. So in this situation UN maps and their uses in infoboxes have nothing inadmissible. Moreover there are other articles where also have been added UN map and still no one removed them, e.g. [[Kazakhstan]], [[Kyrgyzstan]], [[Angola]], [[Austria]], [[Estonia]], [[Czech Republic]], [[Finland]] ant etc.. --<big>[[User:Giorgi Balakhadze|<span style="background:yellow;color:black;font-family:GEO Gothic;padding:0 4px">g. balaxaZe</span>]][[User talk:Giorgi Balakhadze|<span style="background:#80D0FF;color:white;padding:0 4px">✰</span>]]</big> 19:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:58, 12 May 2014
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
![]() | Georgia (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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
|
||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
motto
what is source of motto?
Vandalism / CENSORSHIP by Chipmunkdavis?
There are several issues with recent edits made by Chipmunkdavis comparison between my and his edit
- I don't agree that changes made by me are against BBC article. I have actually checked carefully BBC article and none of my edits are against the facts mentioned in BBC article. In fact, even the article says Georgians avoid calling the region "South Ossetia" and implying that North Ossetia is sole Ossetia.
- Adjaria didn't gain autonomy under Aslan Abashidze. Even the sourced BBC article doesn't say that. In fact Adjara gained autonomy in 1921. Check yourself Adjar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Neither does the article say that military base was built during Aslan Abashidze's rule. Check 12th Military Base.
- The removal of WP link Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence is unexplained.
- By removing subsection Occupied territories of Georgia you are violating WP:Undue weight. Specifically Undue weight is given to Abkhazian and South Ossetian side of story (struggle for independence), while Georgian and International side is denied to be accessible to readers. That can also be classified as CENSORSHIP. Article about Israel contains subsection Israeli-occupied territories yet nobody has yet removed it by the same reason you are implying.
- Georgia isn't only one that denies the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. So I chose better wording. Check Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. --Zgagloev (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- BBC noted that Georgia deliberately wanted to break the tie with Northern Ossetia. Your original reword (ie. the one that I actually reverted rather than the one you're justifying here) was "to avoid calling it "South Ossetia" which is legacy name from Soviet era", which doesn't mention North Ossetia at all. Your new reword is indeed different, and is now in agreement with the BBC article. Controversy is not a main article for the section, it's a very specific topic, and really should be a subset of the international recognition page, since it's the controversy that causes the dispute over recognition (and really I don't think it's fair to say all of Georgian history post the war can be summed up with opinions on Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as our current main tag does, but that's a different matter). The subsection "Occupied territories" gave nothing to readers other than 1) the note Georgia considers them occupied, which is already covered by the article (it's in the lead in fact), and 2) details about a specific law, which doesn't appear to convey any additional information about any position. We note that Georgia considers the areas part of sovereign Georgia, and that the areas remain majority unrecognised. Which bit of the Georgian position is supposedly being censored? CMD (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Again this edit tries to hide some facts about Georgia. Can anybody explain what is wrong with stating that Georgia has law regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia and describing this law? Article about Israel covers Israeli-occupied territories in detail. So why can't article about Georgia contain information about the territories in Georgia that is considered internationally as Russian-occupied, and the law regarding these entities? Why don't anybody delete that subsection about Israeli-occupied territories from Israel? That suggests that Wikipedia is against Israel and calls Israel occupying force, while at the same time Wikipedia is pro-Russian and avoids mentioning some facts that may show Russia in negative aspect. --Zgagloev (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- How is it notable that Georgia has laws about its territories? All that text on the law said was Georgia considered them occupied (which the article already does), and details the Georgian travel restrictions with regards to them, which is not that important for a general summary article. CMD (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Why not title the article just Georgia?
Why was this article titled "Georgia (country)"? And why at the top there is a disambiguation link to Republic of Georgia but not to the U.S. state of Georgia? We have to do titling right, I'd expect to find a disambiguation link to both the Republic and the state of Georgia, and I'd expect to find the country article under the name of just Georgia without any parentheses. Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- See the list of move requests at the top. — Lfdder (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Rfc: Georgian anthem
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Georgian anthem be added to the article? Jaqeli (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added couple of days ago the Georgian anthem to the article but it was removed by the user Chupmunkdevis. All countries have their anthem respectively on their own article pages and Georgia should not be an exception and the anthem should be definitely added. So I want to ask the fellow wikipedians should the anthem be added back again? Jaqeli (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Talk:Georgia_(country)/Archive_6#Anthem. (Jaqeli is GeorgianJorjadze.) — Lfdder (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 9#RFC: Audio links to national anthems — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Survey
- Support as nominator. Jaqeli (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per statements I made in the above discussion linked by Lfdder, and by (what I see as) the general, albeit with not the largest total sample size, trend of the subsequent Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 9#RFC: Audio links to national anthems. Infoboxes are meant to be concise summaries of countries, containing very basic facts and figures. An audio of the anthem does not help the readers understand Georgia, or provide any information about Georgia (aside from what the anthem sounds like, but that's quite minor). Readers interested in the anthem can find the recording (including a pure instrumental one), along with original lyrics, a translation, and much more through the link Tavisupleba, which is included in the infobox (in the Georgian script), just as they can explore any topic in greater detail per wikipedia's summary style.
- (TLDR) In summary, I feel that the anthem is cruft similar to wp:flagcruft, in that it doesn't contribute to the readers understanding of the topic. CMD (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (I am the user Jaqeli mentioned in the lead, under the moniker Chipmunkdavis, not Chupmunkdevis as spelled above)
- Weak oppose. I wouldn't really object heavily to having a more prominent mention of the Georgian national anthem (including an audio link). However, when the general question of anthems (including audio links) in country infoboxes was discussed last August/September, there was no real consensus either way. I understand the concerns of people who don't want infoboxes to become unmanageably large, and I would also note that someone who wants to know more about the Georgian anthem can click on its name and reach an article which discusses it in some detail. So I don't see a compelling need here to change the status quo. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Map Update
The map does not include South Sudan, it needs to be updated. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
UN Georgia locator map
In [1] case I think, that Wikipedia has no its own cartography school, and we may consider all maps in commons as wikipedia's, but still it's very obscure what means 'wikipedia's map'. So in this situation UN maps and their uses in infoboxes have nothing inadmissible. Moreover there are other articles where also have been added UN map and still no one removed them, e.g. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Angola, Austria, Estonia, Czech Republic, Finland ant etc.. --g. balaxaZe✰ 19:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
You must be logged in to post a comment.