Talk:Georgia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is part 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.

Archives

1 : creation - July 2007

Contents 1 Vote #'s 2 Proposed page moves 3 Georgia Brown leads to another disambiguation page 4 Disambiguation overkill 5 Uhhh 6 May 2004 data 7 Why hasn't this page been moved yet? 8 Article traffic data 8.1 Georgia (country) 8.2 Georgia (U.S. state) 9 Requested Move - 15 March 2008 9.1 Survey 9.2 Discussion 10 Disambig merge

[edit] Vote #'s

I made an edit recently that I thought was going to fix the numbers of the votes of Option #2 from 1-2-1-2 to 1-2-3-4. But it didn't. What should I do?? Georgia guy 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it - you can see how in this edit. Basically, to preserve numbering, every comment that is nested using colons needs to start with a '#' sign, otherwise the software resets to no. 1 the next time it sees a '#' that is not followed by a colon. It's kind of a weird Wiki quirk! -- Hux 05:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed page moves

At the risk of me sound unhelpful - why hasn't Georgia (country) been moved to Georgia and everything else re-rerouted through the disambiguation page? IceflamePhoenix 09:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been moved because whether or not it should be moved is the subject currently under discussion. Please see the various opinions and votes above. It might also be helpful to view the results of the previous poll on this subject. As you can see, there was a lot of discussion and in the end it was decided that "Georgia" should remain as a disambiguation page. -- Hux 11:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true, and I hope a new decision is taken soon to change that :) I've outlined my reasons above, I think all independent countries should be found under the article bearing their name even though there might be other places/objects with the same name. That's how it is on the articles Turkey and Luxembourg and that's how Georgia would ideally be. JdeJ 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia Brown leads to another disambiguation page

If you click on Georgia Brown you're directed to another disambiguation page. Should this happen? Nineko 07:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, as in this case, that's appropriate. --Eyrian 07:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How so? The item was outdated (which is why it only mentioned the British singer), and I've replaced it with individual links to the pertinent articles. —David Levy 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever appropriate or necessary for a link on a disambig page to lead to another disambig page - it defeats the whole purpose of disambiguation, which is to get readers to the article they want as efficiently as possible. We should simply link individually to all the relevant articles on the first disambig page (which is what David Levy has now done). -- Hux 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation overkill

It seems that some editors believe that every article/category that has Georgia in it, needs disambiguation. Does anyone else feel that Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:United States Senators from Georgia (U.S. state) border ridiculous? --Holderca1 18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, yeah, that's pretty stupid. If the title of the page already has "US" in it, or otherwise clearly refers to the United States, I don't see how there's any need to say "Georgia (U.S. state)". -- Hux 09:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We could always rename them "American United States Senators from Georgia (American U.S. State)... Zchris87v

I could be mistaken, but I believe "from" in the name of the second category indicates that they were born there, not that they represented it. While I don't believe there have actually been any US senators yet from Georgia in the Caucasus, I do believe we have foreign-born senators so it is always a possibility.

As far as US Highways in the country of Georgia, it seems unlikely... but what if, say, Russia were part of the US, and a US highway extended across the border? But that one's taking a hypothetical too far, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.56.44 (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uhhh

So why isn't this about the state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.154.153 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because of the country, which used to be an SSR. 4.7 million people live there, it's not exactly insignificant. <eleland/talkedits> 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The state has 8.1 million people, not exactly insignificant either. And an economy 20 times the size of the country. And it's more than twice the area. And it's an English-speaking community. And we're an English-language encyclopedia. My guess is that more of our readers travel there or communicate with people there. And it was the site of an international Olympics. Not exactly insignificant. All of which points to more readers now and in the future being frustrated that typing in "Georgia" does not lead directly to the U.S. state than would ever be frustrated that they have to go to a disambiguation page for an obscure country. Noroton (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleland made no claim that the U.S. state is insignificant. He/she merely noted that the country isn't insignificant. Referring to it as "obscure," coupled with your other statements, only serves to fuel the widespread belief that Americans are ignorant of the rest of the world. —David Levy 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that some Americans still have not figured out that their jingoistic arrogance is one of the primary motivations for some people's desire to fly airliners into office buildings. Just a comment - take it or leave it. Roger (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You saw that I condemned Noroton's comments, but your response is quite insensitive. —David Levy 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no jingoistic arrogance involved; the state has the larger population and is therefore more important in strictly humanistic terms. Wnt (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2004 data

I just checked out the link provided for the number of hits in May of 2004: User:Zigger/Georgia_article_data#May_2004. I noticed though, that an apparent error has been made. While the country page is correct, the data for the state page is not. It is the count for Georgia (state), a rather obscure disambig page. The article for the US state is at Georgia (U.S. state). Also, the link provided as the source for the count no longer works :-/ (http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200405.html) November 2007 (UTC) 210.86.64.91 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The summary page contains a typo (note that lower down it references Georgia (U.S. state) - the original reference to the count is actually at Talk:Georgia/Archive1#Consensus and indicates that page and not Georgia (state) Jooler (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why hasn't this page been moved yet?

Georgia is a country in Eastern Europe/Western Asia. It is far more important than a US state. Wikipedia should not be the mouthpiece of the USA. Do the right thing and fucking move Georgia (country) to this page before people finally lose patience with the beaurocratic shit that seems to be consuming Wikipedia. 213.230.155.25 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to "fucking move" the article.

Note that consensus is not gauged by counting votes. The only verifiable justification provided is that the country is "more important" than the state. This doesn't jibe with Wikipedia's naming conventions (which dictate that the only relevant criterion is the likelihood that a reader seeks the article about a particular subject).

It isn't as though we've handed over the Georgia title to the article about the U.S. state. The current setup no more makes Wikipedia "the mouthpiece of the USA" than the Macedonia page makes Wikipedia the mouthpiece of Greece. —David Levy 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly comparable. The Macedonia discussion actually has some merit, Current country vs. Ancient Territory now part of Greece with shared and overlapping history. This disambiguation page is assuming that a current country with 4000 years of history is less or as important as a 200 year old state for the sole reason that its people don't speak English.--AnY FOUR! (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. As has been noted over and over (and yet, so many people either cannot grasp or refuse to accept), this isn't about relative importance.

Arguments on both sides miss this point. It doesn't matter which entity is older, geographically larger, has a higher population or has more industry. It doesn't matter whether a nation should be regarded as more significant than a subdivision of a nation. The one and only relevant criterion is the likelihood that someone searching the English Wikipedia for "Georgia" seeks a particular article. As the articles about both the country and the U.S. state are extremely likely search targets (and a number of secondary possibilities exist), we have a disambiguation page. This is not a slight; it's a logical service to our readers. —David Levy 06:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I did not know you decided what mattered and what didn't. Is there a policy on relative importance, or is it a policy as long as someone for the US might look at it another way?.

Shall we move the Football article for you as well? FFMG (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

1. I didn't decide our naming conventions.

2. I don't know what you mean by "as long as someone for the US might look at it another way" or your sarcastic reference to the Football article, but I assume that you're attributing my position to U.S. bias. This is a common response to any argument that fails to discriminate against U.S.-related articles. —David Levy 07:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So, at what point in the above vote would a final decision be made to carry through with one of the options? At the moment we're looking at 24-9-0-2 votes respectively for each option. That, to me, would seem like some sort of consensus? --Schcambo (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not gauged simply by counting votes. —David Levy 02:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[Remove Indent] But your comment does not address when you believe it is achieved, nor indeed does it comment as to whether or not you believe there exists a consensus. Merely pointing to policy does not in general advance a debate. --Neo (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read my previous comments (posted in this very section)? —David Levy 16:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:Naming conflict#Ambiguity persists specifically states that "in those unsolved cases a poll [...] can be conducted", and further "in the poll every wikipedian just decides for himself/herself which of the choices he/she most easily recognises [sic]". This has been done, and quite clearly a large majority of wikipedians have stated that Georgia (country) is the Georgia they most easily recognise, not the US state, and they wish that this be reflected through a page move. As such, once consensus is satisfied through such a poll, then the page move wouldn't be breaking any guideline at WP:NC, as you have mistakenly stated above. --Schcambo (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that isn't what has occurred, and you've referenced my remarks out of context (thereby misrepresenting my position).

Most respondents favoring a move have cited the nation's importance, not its level of recognition. Given the fact that "importance" isn't a naming criterion, these votes carry little or no weight. My citation of WP:NC was in response to FFMG's assertion that I was unilaterally deciding that "importance" isn't a naming criterion.

Furthermore, when considering an issue related to cultural differences, it's important that we analyze the discussion participants' demographic breakdown (and ensure that it approximates that of our readers as a whole or that we've taken any disparity into account). In this instance, the percentage of respondents from the United States (those most likely to recognize "Georgia" as a U.S. state) has been significantly lower than the percentage of English Wikipedia users from the United States. (Only three of the move proponents might be from the United States, and at least two of the move opponents definitely aren't.) So even if most of the move proponents were citing their recognition as a rationale, the results would be skewed by the lack of an accurate cross section.

Also note that you counted a misplaced vote in opposition of the move as a "support" vote (which leads me to believe that you didn't bother to read the comments) and that two of the move proponents have been blocked as abusive sock puppeteers. —David Levy 22:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that importance and recognisability aren't two completely different things; in fact they are extremely similar. If someone believes a country to be more important than a sub-division of a country, they are doing so because they believe countries are more recognisable than sub-divisions of countries. Hence there is absolutely nothing wrong with this rationale, and their votes count for just as much as yours or mine.

As for your idea that we must take demographics into account on a poll like this, you're really plucking at straws. The fact that there are far more users who recognise the country above the state strongly suggests there are also far more readers who do the same. In any case, on a website like Wikipedia, it would be simply impossible to truthfully find out the nationality of every user who has voted unless everyone decided to use an IP address, which could easily be changed in any case through a proxy. --Schcambo (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

1. No, importance and recognizability are different things. If there are two notable people with the same name — one a famous actor and the other a relatively obscure medical researcher developing a cancer drug with the potential to save millions of lives — guess which one will receive the primary title.

If you actually read the comments, you'll see that people are citing the "importance" of a nation compared to a subnational entity (not this particular country's higher level of recognition) as their rationale. While that's a valid argument, it isn't one that applies to this situation.

2. We absolutely must take demographics into account. (The same principle applies when an international discussion happens to be dominated by Americans.)

It has not been established that far more users or readers recognize the country. Again, even if all of the move proponents were citing their comparative recognition as a rationale (which they aren't), most are not from the United States. (We know this from their own statements.) Compared to the percentage of our users/readers from the United States, the number of respondents from the U.S. is disproportionately low. Therefore, when analyzing comparative recognition, this is not an accurate cross section. —David Levy 12:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Name me a country that is important but not recognisable, and then a country that is recognisable but not important. I think you'll find there are none. --Schcambo (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Define a country that is not recognizable. I'm quite sure all countries are. Georgia guy (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nauru. I've no idea how you'd define it, but I'd never heard of it until I went looking. --Schcambo (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of Nauru. —David Levy 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument, given the fact that I haven't claimed that Georgia (the country) is unimportant or unrecognizable. The pertinent condition is that the U.S. state also is recognizable to a large percentage of English-speakers (and its relative importance is irrelevant). —David Levy 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And my argument, and the argument of every user who has an opposing viewpoint to yourself, is that the country is more important and more recognizable than the state, and only specifically citing one of those two does not somehow render their vote invalid. --Schcambo (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see many assertions that the country is more important than the U.S. state (which is not one of our naming criteria). I don't see many assertions that it's more recognizable. Certainly, it's more recognizable to most of our readers from outside the United States, but the opposite is true of our readers from inside the United States (a very large percentage), and I don't see anyone disputing that. —David Levy 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The only statistics we can use are those from Alexa below, which show traffic from the U.S. makes up about 15% of total wikipedia.org traffic. Where they go after that, we don't know, and we can't try to guess. --Schcambo (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As you've aware, that includes every Wikipedia language, so it doesn't really tell us much. But we do know that a huge percentage of our users are from the United States; this leads to the very real problem of us having greater coverage of U.S. subjects than of subjects pertaining to other countries (because people generally write and edit articles about topics that they know about). If you were to frequent Talk:Main Page, you'd see that many complaints stem from allegations that the multitude of American editors use their numbers to their advantage by deliberately excluding non-U.S. articles from the main page. (In actuality, most of the bias is purely systemic; we can only feature articles that people have written/edited.) —David Levy 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See below. --Schcambo (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

2. And how do you propose finding out the number of readers who are from the US and the number from other countries? The only data I can find (here) simply lists traffic data for the entire Wikipedia.org domain. --Schcambo (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If we add up the number of English-speaking people in Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, Canada, the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Guyana, Suriname, Ireland, Jamaica, Montserrat, New Zealand, Norfolk Island, the Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Trinidad and Tobago, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United Kingdom, we arrive at a figure equaling less than 47% of the English-speaking people in the United States. —David Levy 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Add India to that list and the US majority is toast! Roger (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Check and mate. Taken from English language: "combining native and non-native speakers, India now has more people who speak or understand English than any other country in the world." But do we disallow non-native speakers then? Do they not count because it would upset your US-biased demographic vote system?
In any case, other problems with your solution:
1. How are we to deal with, say people in Ireland who primarily speak Irish, or people in the US who primarily speak Spanish? Are we to trawl through the censuses of every single one of these countries to come up with an exact figure?
2. What about the large number of English speakers from other countries who contribute here, such as France or Germany? Are their votes somehow worth less than yours or mine?
3. You still haven't explained to me how you would find out the nationalities of everyone who has voted - most users don't give out that kind of info. --Schcambo (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

1.No, I said nothing about "disallow[ing]" non-native English-speakers. (In fact, the figures that I cited include them.) I listed the countries in which English is spoken by a majority as a primary language not to imply that other countries (such as India) are irrelevant, but to illustrate the fact that the U.S. hasn't been proportionately represented in the straw poll. (We've had far more participants from a handful of the countries that I named than we have from the United States.)

If you knew me better, you'd realize that I strongly object to any unfair representation in Wikipedia. (I recently participated in a lengthy discussion in which I passionately argued against the adoption of a guideline to exclude anime information pertaining to languages other than English and Japanese.) Had you bothered to read all of the discussion on this very page, you'd have seen this comment of mine.

2. Indeed, the opinions of non-native English-speakers (such as those from France and Germany) count too, but most of the participants in the straw poll have been native English-speakers from a handful of the countries that I named.

3. I know this because I took the time to check each and every one of their user pages for references to their nationalities, and if I found none, I searched through their contributions. —David Levy 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Hold on a minute. Having only gone through the supports for option two, users 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 are all most likely U.S. citizens. Out of 28 votes in total for options one and two, that represents almost 40%. How in hell are you trying to tell me "the U.S. hasn't been proportionately represented"? That's rubbish and you know it! If anything the U.S. is over-represented!
And yes, I saw that comment and I commend you for it because I know most Americans wouldn't dare say it.

2. I think, in fact, the U.S. is probably the single most represented country in the poll.

3. Great suggestion, and having done so myself I now see you were being, oh, liberal with the truth, let's say, in the hope that I wouldn't check myself. --Schcambo (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1a. My exact statement was as follows: "Only three of the move proponents might be from the United States, and at least two of the move opponents definitely aren't." How does that differ from your count?

1b. We've received some additional "support" votes for option 2 over the past few days, so the ratio has shifted somewhat. Nonetheless, there are far more English-speakers in the U.S. than in most or all of the other respondents' countries combined.

Keep in mind that because "importance" isn't a Wikipedia naming criterion, this is purely a matter of reader convenience. Please see the article traffic data below. Because both the article about the country and the article about the U.S. state are sought by very large numbers of people (and there are notable secondary meanings), we have a disambiguation page.

I would not apply the demographic argument to every dispute. For example, I would never assert that we should change articles to U.S. English because we have so many U.S. readers. (I've actually seen people say that, and it's as ridiculous as the argument that we should always use British English because it's the "correct" form.)

1c. If you saw that comment, why are you accusing me of acting out of U.S. bias? I recently supported (and passionately argued for) the renaming of Football (soccer) (which contains the sport's U.S. name) as Association football (which does not). Before that, I supported the renaming of Check (finance) (which contains the subject's usual U.S. spelling) as Cheque (which does not). In both instances, I did so for the benefit of Wikipedia (not for the benefit of Americans).

2. (covered above)

3. No, I was not being "liberal with the truth." As noted above, I plainly conveyed my determination that two of the option 2 supporters were not from the United States. I have no problem with you checking yourself, and I've actually been encouraging you to pay closer attention to people's comments. —David Levy 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that there's a "US majority." I'm pointing out that there's a far higher percentage than is represented in the above straw poll. —David Levy 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, even if we presume that everyone from the US who visits wiki.org goes on to en.wiki, then 15% into 55% means that only about 27% of our readers are American. Thus, even several days ago, the demographics were skewed in favour of Americans.

About the football/soccer thing, really? I would have thought that because it's not an 'Americanism' per se (simply adopted by them), and considering it is used here in Ireland, for example, to differentiate between it and Gaelic football, it wouldn't have been much of a problem. But that's another debate, I guess... --Schcambo (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read over your numbers several times, but I can't figure out what you're referring to. And given the fact that the usage statistics for the country's article and the U.S. state's article clearly demonstrate that the former is viewed by only slightly more readers than the latter is, I don't even know why we're debating this.

You're quite correct that "soccer" isn't an Americanism, but it's perceived as one (and also as a colloquialism) by many. As a result, Soccer cannot be used as the article's title. Obviously, Football can't either (because it refers to several popular sports and already contains an article about them). Therefore, we (well, I wasn't involved yet) arrived at the absurd "compromise" title Football (soccer), which defied our naming conventions for the sake of not allowing anyone to "win." It was a very long time before we were able to build consensus for a move to Association football, but it finally happened. The sport is known almost exclusively as "soccer" in my country, but I'd much rather use a term unfamiliar to Americans than inflict a non-standard title on everyone. —David Levy 00:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This is like the Mega Drive article. Except this time it's also called Georgia by North Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnY FOUR! (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How old is the name anyway? The Kingdom of Georgia is mentioned as dating back to 1008 A.D., but before then I see various mentions of Colchis and Iberia (another disambiguation battle for you... ;) ) But the Kingdom of Georgia was a different shape and size, and we're not issuing a trademark here. Even so, I wish someone would edit the article to explain who "George" was, anyway. Wnt (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article traffic data

I don't advocate using this as evidence for article placement (especially in this case where there is not a large difference in results) but it might be of interest to others. — AjaxSmack 09:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

• Georgia (country): 123,132 page views[1]
• Georgia (U.S. state): 100,201 page views[2]

February 2008

• Georgia (country): 116,917 page views[3]
• Georgia (U.S. state): 104,522 page views[4]

Thank you, AjaxSmack. These are the only facts that are really relevant here, and they amply demonstrate that Georgia should either be a disambiguation page, or (better, IMHO) redirect visitors to a disambiguation page with a more canonical name (such as Georgia (disambiguation).) --Sapphic (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the stats are at least partly inaccurate. They don't seem to count redirects, and there is some confusion over case-sensitivity. Here are more complete stats from February 2008 for all of the redirect pages for the two main pages:

[edit] Georgia (country)

• Former_Soviet_republic_of_Georgia 65
• Georgia(country) 519
• Georgia,_Asia 29
• Georgia,_Caucasus 77
• Georgia_(Caucasus) 124
• Georgia_(Country) 116917
• Georgia_(Eurasian_state) 16
• Georgia_(Republic) 44
• Georgia_(Sakartvelo) 20
• Georgia_(countrey) 19
• Georgia_(nation) 56
• Georgia_(republic) 44
• Georgia_(sovereign_state) 14
• Georgia_country 361
• Georgian_Republic 42
• Gorjestan 46
• Gruzia 173
• Gruziya 30
• ISO_3166-1%3AGE 19
• Languages_of_Georgia 25
• Republic_of_Georgia 1520
• Sak'art'velo 8
• Sakartvelo 261
• Western_Georgia 14

[edit] Georgia (U.S. state)

• Georgia,_State 181
• Georgia,_U.S 271
• Georgia,_US 71
• Georgia,_USA 394
• Georgia,_United_States 104
• Georgia_(American_state) 26
• Georgia_(State) 232
• Georgia_(U.S.) 248
• Georgia_(U.S._State) 104522
• Georgia_(U.S._state 238
• Georgia_(U.S._states) 26
• Georgia_(U._S._State) 81
• Georgia_(U._S._state) 81
• Georgia_(US) 81
• Georgia_(USA) 81
• Georgia_(US_State) 529
• Georgia_(US_state) 529
• Georgia_(United_States) 39
• Georgia_(United_States_state) 56
• Georgia_supreme_court 142
• Goober_state 15
• State_of_Georgia 1488
• The_Empire_State_of_the_South 10
• The_Peach_State 17
• U.S._Georgia 14
• US-GA 5

Note that redirect pages that differ only in capitalization have the same number of visits, which is clearly wrong. I'll take this up with User:Henrik. This difference is likely only minor, and doesn't alter the fact that traffic to each article is roughly equal. --Sapphic (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move - 15 March 2008

I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves that Georgia (country) be moved to Georgia, on the basis that consensus has been reached in the discussion below. Currently, votes for the five options are at 24(25, -2 sockpuppeteers, +1 oppose for option four)-12-0-2-0(last two options can be disregarded as redirecting "Subject name" to "Subject name (disambiguation term)" is against WP:NC). I would invite any disinterested admin to either remove this request or follow through on it, as is their wish. Thanks. --Schcambo (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please do not vote in the section immediately below, which was added by an anonymous user. If you wish add a comment in relation to any of the options on display, please see the discussion below.

This is the section pertaining to the move request. Please refrain from instructing users not to comment here and implying that anonymous users are somehow beneath logged-in users. —David Levy 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The move request is based on the discussion that has been ongoing since July 2007, not on one created by an anonymous IP the other day. You'll notice that even the move template only says that discussion is "usually under the heading "Requested move"" (italics added for emphasis). --Schcambo (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

1. We cannot base a new move request on a straw poll containing many old responses that might not even be current. (Believe it or not, some people's opinions actually change in light of other people's arguments.)

2. Why do you keep using the phrase "anonymous IP" as though that's a pejorative term? Anonymous users are allowed to edit, and the one in question did nothing improper. —David Levy 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Firstly, it didn't stop this previous poll which ended in no consensus after 27 months, leaving the pages at the status quo, which just happens to be the option you support. Secondly, the whole point for which this poll was created in the first place was so that after a period of time when consensus was gained for one option or other, then that option would be carried through on. If we created a poll, left it for seven days, and after that time there was clear support for moving Georgia (country) to Georgia, you'd be the first one to complain that it hadn't been left open long enough. Thirdly, if some people's opinions have changed in light of others' arguments, then it is their responsibility to strike/change their vote, not ours to guess what they would do. If they haven't done so, then we can presume they haven't changed their opinion. --Schcambo (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Because anon users' votes are generally not counted in polls. --Schcambo (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1a. The straw poll should have been closed long ago, but I can't do that (because I'm an involved party). And yes, the previous poll also went on for a ridiculously long time. Its outcome, however, was appropriate; there was no consensus. If we simply disregard that poll in its entirety, the outcome remains identical: no consensus and no page moves.

1b. No, I would not complain about a seven-day poll that established consensus for such a move, provided that it was conducted according to the proper procedure. Move requests are supposed to be added to WP:RM at the poll's start; it's the standard means of notifying the community. Until you listed it at that page, the above straw poll attracted users who came to this page on their own (something that people who object to the status quo are considerably more likely to do).

1c. No, we don't gauge consensus by assuming that people's old opinions haven't changed. We don't assume anything (including that their opinions have changed). The onus is on the proposal's proponent(s) to establish consensus (or a lack of consensus), so ambiguity favors the status quo.

2. It's true that anonymous votes often are discounted or disregarded, but that has no bearing on the introduction of this section. —David Levy 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply, there should not be two simultaneously open polls/discussions; that just invites confusion. --Schcambo (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. That old poll should have been closed long ago. Given the fact that its status is disputed, I've noted that above and restored the link to the move request discussion (which you should not be removing, an act that makes it appear as though you dislike the present results and are attempting to hide them).

I'd certainly be interested in hearing how you believe that the responses contained therein are less valid than those from the straw poll. —David Levy 00:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

• Oppose the current way works fine. (with country and state disambiguators) 70.51.8.110 (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  Firstly, this is not the place to vote. See below. Secondly, anonymous votes are generally disregarded in polls of any kind on Wikipedia. --Schcambo (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. This is the section pertaining to the move request. Please refrain from instructing users not to comment here.
  2. Do not strike other users' comments. We can see that the above vote was posted by an anonymous contributer. —David Levy 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. As above, this is not the section pertaining to the move request. This is a section created by an anon user for a reason I do not know of.
  2. My bad, but it's common practice. --Schcambo (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  The anonymous user created the section because you didn't. —David Levy 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  I didn't create it because I didn't have to (you'll note that the discuss button at WP:RM links to the already open discussion). --Schcambo (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  Please see above. —David Levy 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose if for no reason other then this request has been nothing but a total and complete mess. There is no way a move can be approved given how far out of policy this attempt was. In addition, there is no primary topic so the move should not happen if correctly proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sort of confused about where I'm supposed to cast this vote, so I'll just put it here. Basically, the usage statistics don't seem nearly compelling enough; the country and state are almost evenly divided, with a slight advantage for the country. "Georgia" is just to ambiguous of a term to justify giving it to one article.Erudy (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose'. Clearly not a case where primary disambiguation is justified. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The premise of this move is that the country Georgia is more important, but look at the numbers. The U.S. state has 8 million people vs. 5 million for the nation and $363 billion in GDP vs. $20 billion for the nation, though it only has 50,000 square km vs. 70,000 for the nation. The Wikipedia traffic statistics also support a similar degree of importance for the two. Therefore, barring nuclear accidents, it is unreasonable to suppose that Wikipedia readers will ever be interested in the nation more than about half the time. Meanwhile, offering a disambiguation page means that Wikipedia novice users have easier access to the state of Georgia plus all the odd little Georgias in the world. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support (Copy from last vote) Why would Georgia be different from other countries simply because a US state happens to have the same name, surely the country comes first. But the last votes were ignored and so will this one. If an admin ever comes around, please look at the previous votes, where there was a large support for the move.

Comment Now the only thing happening here are 2 users having a bit of a 'semi-polite' fight about who is right and who is not and in the process this entire talk page is nothing more than a little talk show between the two. The move will not happen because Georgia is a US state and that's the way Wikipedia works, deal with it. FFMG (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as no clear consensus has been reached and no convincing case for a move made. Biruitorul (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support because country is older than state. 4000-year-old country is more recognizable than 200-year-old U.S. state. --20000 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 10:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the country is more recognizable...except to the huge segment of our readers from the United States. Please see the article traffic data. —David Levy 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest Possible Support: This is one of the oldest nations in the world, and it is both a) several 1000- years older than the US State, and b) it should have the preference as a nation. It is insulting to the nation the Americans doesn't see this. Also, a page like History of Georgia (country) should be moved to History of Georgia. I'm a Cuban, and not personally involved- as I fear this kind of straw polls get biased by people involved in the issue, I hope the closing admin

1. not is from either the nation nor the US, and
2. will take the large number of people voting despite being involved into account.

Thus, I support having Georgia (country) at Georgia, with a dab at the top saying:

This article is about the country. For the American state, see Georgia (U.S. state), and for other uses see Georgia (disambiguation).

Something like that.

Overall, a country is more important than a fiftieth of a country. --SCARFACE 10:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And if importance or age were among Wikipedia's naming criteria, the above would be a legitimate rationale. But they aren't. One could also argue that the U.S. state is geographically larger, has a higher population and has an economy roughly twenty times the size of the country's, but those facts are equally irrelevant. The one and only valid consideration is the likelihood that someone searching for "Georgia" seeks a particular article. As demonstrated by the traffic data for the articles about the country and the U.S. state, we have no primary usage.
What do you mean when you refer to "the large number of people voting despite being involved"? —David Levy 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support: Oh my god, a friend of me told me about this issue, and I didn't believe him...And right now I can't believe my eyes neither. How the hell you guys expect someone to invest time on workin' on Wikipedia if you have to deal with such level ignorance? I am ashamed of having to express my self in front of people who can even figure to hypothesize to image to suggest to consider to give priority an United States' province rather than a country. Blame on you. Georgia is Georgia, I can't even believe there is a similiar discussion. By the way, my snake is called Taiwan, So I officially ask "Taiwan" page to become a disambiguation. Besides, I didn't understand the organization of this poll in different "options". I say it because I didn't wrote "disagree" on the others sections, I hope no one was so insane to write agree on one and disagree on the others. Why would Georgia be different from other countries simply because a U.S. state happens to have the same name?

Surely the country comes first. If I am looking for a subject that is the clear second-most important usage of its name (or even if I would consider it the most important), I much prefer to arrive at an article on a different usage, with "for usage X see...for other uses see..." at the top, than at a disambiguation page with a huge list of obscure usages, which to me looks ugly. I also agree that a nation automatically gets a big notability boost over a subnational unit. Editors who disagree should ask themselves how many states/provinces/counties/départments/cantons/whatever they can name from countries outside their own, in my case it is very few. The official name of Georgia in English is Georgia, while the State has for name State of Georgia. Therefore, using the official names for both is better. Plus, the Georgian language is related to the country, not the state. And Georgia is a country with a long history, so it should be more important than a sub-national entity. Anyway, I hope this works. --Prem ^{(Give me some banter)} 11:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

1. How did we "give priority" to the U.S. state? Its article doesn't occupy the Georgia title (which would be ridiculous), and the country's article is listed first.
2. Again, importance is not a Wikipedia naming criterion. Your "ignorance" of this fact is preventing you from comprehending the situation (and leading you to confuse a standard application of Wikipedia's naming conventions with a dastardly American plot). Please see the article traffic data and understand that the lack of a primary meaning (one that is used overwhelming more than all others) is the only relevant factor. —David Levy 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't discuss it here. Discuss it below! -- 20000 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Support: It doesn't make sense with something like "Going to Georgia (country)" and "A war involving Georgia (country)", so I give a BIG YES! Also, having "(country)" in the name is a bit stupid, as you don't see Macedonia (country) being the article. Georgia, the country, has been in the news more than the state recently, due to an important event. So, I agree that it should be moved. -- ←‡‡ Suby Dudes From Subway ^{Eat fresh and chat!} (20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)) ‡‡→

[edit] Discussion

• Comment this is missing the move template. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  Add move template (hadn't put it there earlier because this isn't the primary page to be moved); delete section I didn't add [Edit summary supplied by Schcambo when adding the move template and removing this entire section at 12:12 (UTC) on 16 March 2008]

  It's normal to include move proposals on relevant talk pages, and you have no right to remove other users' comments on this matter (including my post from 5:37, which is highly critical of your actions). —David Levy 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  I've every right to remove a section purported to have been put here by myself but, in fact, added by an anonymous user. Georgia (country) is the primary page to be moved, and as you can see I placed a move template on that talk page (and I've now added that template here). --Schcambo (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. You released your text under the GNU Free Documentation License, thereby providing permission for anyone to republish it under the terms of said license. Copying and pasting it to this page with the proper attribution was an entirely normal act that in no way meant that it was "purported to have been put here by" you.
  2. In eliminating this section, you didn't merely remove your text; you also removed other users' comments (including mine, which are highly critical of your conduct). That was inappropriate, as was your striking of another user's vote (which I just reverted). Anonymous users are allowed to edit, so kindly stop interfering with and denigrating this one.
  3. You're also proposing that the Georgia page be moved, and your request linked to this talk page. 70.51.8.110 merely started the appropriate discussion here. —David Levy 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  I released my text under the GNU Free Documentation License on another page. Putting it here without any explanation and including my signature is, as you explained to me below, taking it slightly out of context. --Schcambo (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. Are you familiar with the license under which you're releasing your text? If someone wanted to, he/she could republish it on another website.
  2. I don't see how any relevant context was lost by copying your exact words, pasting them into a related section (which otherwise would have lacked the needed context), and properly attributing them to you. Nonetheless, you could have simply added a note explaining that the request was taken from WP:RM. Failing that, you could have at least removed only that paragraph. Removing other people's replies was highly inappropriate. —David Levy 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  Point taken, and I have no problem with my text being put here, but I do have a problem with an entire section being created around it without explanation. --Schcambo (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  Admins and editors frequently do add appropriate talk sections when other editors fail to complete the steps listed at WP:RM. This happen all too often. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  If you had actually read the steps listed at WP:RM, you'd have noticed the line "If the discussion does not already exist, create a section at the bottom of the talk page of the page you have requested to be moved" (italics for emphasis). Thus, as I have already tried to explain above, the steps listed were completed correctly. In addition, per your edit, it is your belief there was not consensus in the previous poll, it is mine that there was, this can only be decided by an admin who closes and archives the original debate. Until such time, it is still open. --Schcambo (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  Wow, talk about wikilawyering. That text is referring to new discussions that have recently begun, not to straw polls from eight months ago.
  Given the fact that the straw poll's status is disputed, I've noted that above and restored the link to the move request discussion (which you should not be removing, an act that makes it appear as though you dislike the present results and are attempting to hide them). I'd certainly be interested in hearing how you believe that the responses contained therein are less valid than those from the straw poll. —David Levy 00:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: It's rather disheartening to see that Schcambo has decided to disregard my explanations of policy by claiming that consensus is determined simply by counting votes (and ignoring the actual rationales provided). Please see #Why hasn't this page been moved yet? for details. —David Levy 05:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  I have not claimed that consensus is gauged simply by vote counting. It is my opinion that importance and recognisability are two very similar things, and so votes made using either rationale are equally relevant. It is your opinion that they are not. That's fine. But there is absolutely nothing untoward about my making use of Wikipedia policies to ask for a page move, if I consider consensus to have been met, and it will then be up to other admins to agree or disagree with me. May I also say that with some 22 comments on this page aimed primarily at those who do not support your own viewpoint, you are beginning to take this debate quite personally; as an admin yourself that is hardly a good thing. --Schcambo (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. Your move request cites absolutely no rationale other than the claim that "we have 23 votes for option one compared to 9 votes for option two, meaning that the proposal to move Georgia (country) to Georgia has more than two-thirds majority, and has undoubtedly reached consensus." If that isn't a simple vote count, I don't know what is.
  2. Your decision to remove my post (which directed readers to earlier discussion on the matter, thereby conveying my opposing viewpoint) comes across as rather untoward, indeed. I was willing to assume that this was an honest mistake, but your above defense of this act (even after I'd explained why it was inappropriate) leads me to believe that it was a deliberate attempt to suppress contrary viewpoints.
  3. I don't take this debate personally; I do, however, take the removal of my comments by an opponent in a debate rather personally. —David Levy 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  Excuse me? You're forgetting the fact that I noted that "a new discussion has being ongoing on this issue since July 2007". In that period of eight months, I'm sure you'll agree, all avenues of discussion have been exhausted. So no, "that isn't a simple vote count" as you seem to think. --Schcambo (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, you referenced the straw poll, and you cited a "more than two-thirds majority" (with absolutely no mention of any actual rationales that have been provided) as evidence that it "has undoubtedly reached consensus." When I replied by linking to a related discussion in which I express disagreement with this assessment, you removed my post. —David Levy 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've moved this section to the bottom so as to preserve a logical date order on this page. --Schcambo (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig merge

Merge Georgia and Georgia (disambiguation). I see no reason to have two disambig pages, one for the two feuding main uses and one for all the rest. There should be one single disambig page. I don't care whether it's the default page; that debate can continue separately.jnestorius^(talk) 10:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The good thing is, though, that the debate seems to have stopped now that the other content was shipped off to the disambig page. I suspect part of it is that no one wanted their country or state to be on a disambiguation page, but a content fork with just the other Georgia was acceptable. There also seems to be two disambig pages for Santos. Lyc. (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If people want to use their time and energy squabbling on a Talk: page, that's their choice. Compromising WP:POVFORK for any reason, let alone to pander to chauvinism, is a bad idea. I also disagree about Santos: Santos is about the surname whereas Santos (disambiguation) is a proper disambig. IMO these should be renamed "Santos (surname)" and "Santos", but that's by-the-way. jnestorius^(talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Santos (São Paulo) is a large metropolis in Brazil. It is odd, two disambiguation pages must be bypassed in order to find it. According to its page it is the busiest port in Latin America and has its own recognisable accent of Portuguese. Lyc. (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jnestorius. If, as seems to be agreed, there is no primary meaning of Georgia, it is the clear Wikipedia that all possible meanings should be included in the page. It is artificial to have a separate Georgia(disambiguation) page. The fact that this page may have been the subject of more squabbling than most should not be sufficient grounds for abandoning this. There seems to be a consensus that the country and the US state should be at the start, ahead of all other meanings, if everybody sticks to this it should avoid some squabbling. PatGallacher (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above that the pages should be merged. This is not a situation like surnames where separation might be desirable. Note that the changes [5][6] were made unilaterally and with no discussion by a new editor. It is not apparent to me that these changes are related to the country vs. disambiguation debate. Khatru2 (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it's a new editor, he probably was unaware of the standard for disambig. pages, so you could just leave him a note and that should solve it. Lyc. (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if nobody objects over the next day or so, can I just go ahead and merge? PatGallacher (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)