Talk:Georgia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This 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 and/or contribute to the discussion.
 
WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) (Rated Disambig-class)
WikiProject icon
Flag of Georgia (U.S. state).svg Georgia (U.S. state) portal
This 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.
 Disambig  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Georgia (country) (Rated Disambig-class)
WikiProject icon
Flag of Georgia.svg Georgia (country) portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the country 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.
 Disambig  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Discussions regarding the titles of the articles Georgia, Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state) should be held at Talk:Georgia.

Several move proposals have been made concerning the locations of the pages Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). Before making a new one, please review the relevant page naming guideline and these discussions:

  • Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Georgia", 2003: Opposed.
  • Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Georgia", May 2004: Opposed. (Discussion archive) (Poll archive)
  • Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Republic of Georgia", May 2005: Opposed. (Discussion archive)
  • Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Georgia", July 2006: No consensus for move. (Discussion archive)
  • Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Georgia", July 2007: Outcome/status disputed (Discussion archive)
  • Move: "Georgia (country)" → "Georgia", March 2008: No consensus for move. (Discussion archive)
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 article on 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 essentially argue that internationally recognised countries should take precedence over sub-national units like the U.S. state.
  • Opponents for such a renaming note that under Wikipedia's guidelines, the primary topic is determined based on which one is significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings, not whether which one is more important or significant. They argue that since there is no evidence that the Eurasian country is significantly more commonly searched for than the U.S. state, then the former cannot be the primary topic.



Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents

[edit] English speakers are guilty of this.

... 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)

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

[edit] Index of archived arguments

(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:

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)

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)
"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)
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)
Done. 118.90.111.248 (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks! - BilCat (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
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)

[edit] So, basically

Arguments pro-country:

Arguments pro-state:

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

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)
  • 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Not so basically -- "Is there a primary topic?"

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)

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)

[edit] Conversation needs more numbers, less US/anti bias

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgia"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export