Jump to content

Talk:Georgia (country)/Requested move - July 2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updated Poll

The poll below< /S > above is too old, so I thought we should do a new poll - The Georgia Moving Poll 2007.

Why not first discuss when you have a problem with the outcome of previous poll?--Van helsing 15:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems most arguments has been made many times.Greswik 10:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, a poll has also already been done before, and here you’re participating in a new one. Why is discussing invalid this time? --Van helsing 13:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well no, wasn't the result no consensus? This being a far better result for those who wanted a change than a defeat. The result was 75 for the losing alternative, and 70 for the "winning". Also note the information gained during the last polling: if you look at comment 4 under alternative 3, it looks like the nation actually gets three times as many hits as the state. The discussion and the polling could be simultanous this time. Greswik 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn’t "no consensus" a valuable piece of information? In my view it means you have to make a double effort to develop a consensus by persuading others to accept the validity of your viewpoints. That’s quite hard to do in a poll, hence the emphasis on discussion, debate and collaboration. --Van helsing 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay if you want to discuss; discuss here, look at the reasoning for why Georgia should go directly to the country. Wikipedia is really biased and pro-Americanization, when many people aren't. Everything is explained for the convenience of Americans many articles, in the article for the Serengeti it used to say Tanzania, Africa. But in american town articles stating the state is enough. when for African places you have to state the continent. This is really unfair.--Serminigo 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Also the results of the poll were 75 to 70 (for the big options) so why don't we just change it? More people will be happy.--Serminigo 10:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn’t a democracy and doesn’t work by simple majority, rather it uses consensus decision-making. Good chance – if consensus is reached – it will make even more people happy. So lets try to build one. --Van helsing 11:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Super Monkey Serminigo is trying to reach consencus but will he succeed? Okay from what I;ve heard so far is that everyone prefers that it goes to Georgia (Country). Come on this is just insulting to the nation! Anyone who disagrees speak now, if no one seems to care then I'll just change it (sorry i originally edited with my ISP).--Serminigo 11:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
To the both of you: I refered the poll as 75-70. Of course, there was four options- the last two of people who most likely would have gone for status quo if they had to choose. But it was not 70, the admin disregarded two "votes": one clearly in the wrong place, another from an IP with only this contrib, and under the assumption the country of Georgia was something new. Anyhow: it seems to me the very most voters for the status quo seems to be either under the misinformation the country is the newest, - which is seriously wrong,- or under the misinformation the most people punching "Georgia" is looking for the US state- seemed to be proved to be wrong, and by 3:1- or under the unimpressing claim the state should have the weight of its citizens (what would be left for the USA then, if the states "ate" all the weight of the citizens?) It's also a lot of "this is the least violation of NPOV" arguments which frankly is higly unimpressing- especially when people admit they understand a nation is a higher entity than a subdivision. Greswik 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well anyway the poll has spoken I will move it soon.--Serminigo 16:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't; your change will be reverted. Wikipedia works by consensus, not majority vote, and there is no consensus here. --Eyrian 17:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you Joking? The votes are 2-0-0-0, we win. --Serminigo 11:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. The previous massive discussions have established that there isn't a consensus regarding what should be done. Unless something happens that it likely to procure similar amounts of Wikipedians from across the project, one cannot claim that a new consensus has been formed. --Eyrian 20:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, realize that the community came together once upon a time and basically decided to leave it as a disambiguation page. It doesn't cross anyone's mind to wonder "hey, I wonder if the most-participated-in page moving poll in Wikipedia's history is being duplicated because it's become "too old" (never mind that nothing's changed--it's not as if either has experienced a sudden population surge). So you probably won't get enough support for any sort of consensus. And to be honest, read some of the arguments in support of the status quo... it's a good thing the status quo won that. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with starting another poll - it's been a year and a half since the last one and things change fast on Wikipedia. If I recall, every year the ratio of non-US to US editors and readers increases. If that trend continues it's possible that consensus will develop for moving Georgia (country) to Georgia, so there's no harm in raising the issue again. Remember that consensus can change. -- Hux 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change. But a consensus previously formed by 150 editors can't be overruled by one formed by 5. --Eyrian 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree absolutely and was not suggesting that it should, only that there's nothing wrong with having a discussion/new poll more than a year after the previous one. Obviously the new poll would have to present a dramatically different result, with roughly the same number of total voters, in order to change the existing consensus. -- Hux 04:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Will there ever be anybody who isn't American that thinks things should be kept as they are? Basically, Wikipedia is pissing on the entire country of Georgia and its peoples just to please a few Americans who are egotistical enough to think a state within a country should be treated on the same level as a 5000 year old historic country itself. Its stomach turning bias and as I said in my vote below, makes the project look pathetic. If there was a place in Georgia called the "United States of America", that title would still go to the North American country. Get some perspective for crying out loud. - The Daddy 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Daddy - Do me a favour: scan your eyes down to option #2 below and take a look at the reasons given. Is anyone there arguing for the status quo on the basis of nationalist egocentrism? Nope. Now take a look at the previous, identical poll on this subject. Of the 70 people that voted for option #2, did any of them do so out of egotistical desire? Nope, not a single one. In fact, every single person who gave a reason for voting #2 said they were voting that way because having Georgia as a disambiguation page would be more useful to readers. So where, exactly, is this "stomach churning bias"? It simply doesn't exist.
With respect, the person who needs to get some perspective here is you. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, about being useful for readers and the most useful structure for readers in this situation is to have Georgia as a disambiguation page. -- Hux 21:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Option 1: Move Georgia (country) to Georgia and the current Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation)

Option 1 discussion

See others: Option 2 / Option 3 / Option 4 / Option 5 / Option 6
  1. Support A nation has more universal appeal than a US state. If we must go into the Area/Population debate then I think we should include the rest of the world, which dwarfs the US. --Serminigo 13:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. 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 Norwegian, 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 a) not is from either the nation nor the US, and b) will take the large number of people voting despite being involved into account.Greswik 10:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support absolutely embrassing and degrading to the value of the project, that the country isn't already located at Georgia. It is also a blatant lie that there is concensus to keep things as they are, the older poll below has more people supporting the move of the Georgia (country) article to Georgia than those who want to keep things as they are. - The Daddy 22:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    You're confusing consensus with democratic majority. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Eyrian 22:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - If Georgia (US State) was a subnational unit of a less influential nation (in wiki.riteme.site terms) we wouldn't even be having this debate. To those who argue that reader utility trumps all, ask yourself who Wikipedia is primarily intended to serve: global users (and I include the US population) wishing to access an encyclopaedia in the English language or is it mainly a resource intended to serve US citizens and their utility? Nick Fraser 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Since this comment appears to be a response to my utility point below I'll answer you: the English Wikipedia is intended to serve everyone in the world who can read English. That being the case, given that a very large number of people will type "Georgia" and expect to see information about the country, while another very large number of people will type in "Georgia" and expect to see information about the US state, it makes the most sense for "Georgia" to go to a disambiguation page (which is where it currently goes). Therefore, according to the utility argument the current status quo should be maintained. Simple, no? -- Hux 17:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - This has been one of the longest running examples of Systemic bias in Wikipedia. Jooler 07:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - Almost all independent countries in the world appear under their proper name, without having to go through a fork. JdeJ 15:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    But that has nothing to do with the fact that they're countries and everything to do with the fact that almost all countries have commonly used names that are not generally confused with anything else and therefore don't require any forking. -- Hux 08:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    Not correct. Turkey leads directly to the country Turkey, not to some fork page mentioning the bird, Luxembourg leads to the country, not to a fork with the Belgian province. This last example is identical to this case.JdeJ 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    You seem to have misunderstood my point. I'm saying that "almost all independent countries" (your words) have articles whose titles match their commonly used name simply because those names are not ambiguous. The fact that two countries have ambiguous names yet are still not forked doesn't change that point. Perhaps what you meant to say was that other ambiguously named countries are not forked, therefore Georgia should also not be forked? If so then in my opinion, Turkey should be forked for exactly the same reason that Georgia is forked: a lot of people will type in "Turkey" and expect to see the article for the bird. "Luxembourg"? Not so much, since I'm betting that the vast, vast majority of people typing that word would expect to see the country article. -- Hux 05:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong support, as per all above. Schcambo 17:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong support. The arguments will continue to rage but I am of the opinion that, in keeping with Wikipedia practise, an independent country should should be given precedence over a national province/state. GreatGodOm 16:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    That's great...except that no such Wikipedia practice exists. Articles are primarily titled based on their utility to the reader, not on arbitrary decisions about which entity "deserves" to have a more "prestigious" title, from a political perspective. If you're basing your vote on Wikipedia convention then you should be voting for "Maintain the status quo". -- Hux (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong support. 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. Bistromathic 15:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support 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. See Luxembourg and Luxembourg (Belgium) AtikuX 06:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. 'Support' What is so bad about having a line saying This page is about the Country, for the U.S State, See Georgia (US State).? Everyone looking for the state can click that link, no issue. Anyone looking for the country is already there, no issue. Stays the same, and people have to wade through a messy disambiguation page. When you go past the Pro-US/Anti-US argument, the official names, what most people are looking for when they search Georgia, this argument is about a single click. It's a country. It's a state. Country > state. That being said, no matter what happens, this vote will be repeated again and again.... Qaanaaq 06:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support, it's been said here that English speakers, rather than a sample of world population, are what's important here. But, ah, aren't most English speakers speaking it as a second language? I doubt that the (say) Hungarian Wikipedia has nearly as much information on either Georgia as we do, so I would expect that Hungarian readers would turn to the English article. <eleland/talkedits> 21:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support, per above country should be given priority. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 04:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose (prefer option 4 below, redirect "Georgia" to state): I'm not convinced world called country "Georgia" first (?). I see now the native word for the country of Georgia is translitered as "Sakartvelo" from the Georgian language; the native word for the U.S. state is "Georgia" only, as from the colony of 1733. Why didn't the King/colony refuse that name, since "Georgia" was already a major area in Eurasia in 1733, or was it? The term "Georgia" needs to be documented as a common English term for that Russian border region from 1733: wasn't that region named "Kartli-Kakheti" in 1783, fifty years after the British colony Georgia? I see no evidence the region was named "Georgia" or even pronounced "Jorja Fox" in 1733. Let's get the facts straight: I suspect the colony/state has been called "Georgia" long enough anyway (1733), so hence name age is not relevant. As far as being territories, both regions are older than dirt, and were inhabited by ancient native peoples. Try a compromise: redirect "Georgia" to the state (for a while), leaving both country/state as original titles. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - surely a country is more important that a subnational entity? --Neo (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Georgia is Georgia, I can't even believe there is a similiar discussion. By the way, my dog is calles New York, So I officially ask "New York" 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.
  16. Strong Support an independent nation should take precedence over a U.S. state. Missionario (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. 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.
  18. Support Why would Georgia be different from other countries simply because a US state happens to have the same name, surely the country comes first. I am surprised this is even up for a vote. FFMG (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    I have just noticed that the vote has been going on for almost 6 months.
    I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but maybe the vote should be closed and we should be officially told what the decision is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FFMG (talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Strong Support I hope this poll will be eventually closed one day ... jonosphere (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Strong support as well, I am surpised this is even a debate, a country is clearly much more important then a a state of a country. And this debate should be closed already. Epson291 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Strong support. A country, especially a sizable one, is more vital for an encyclopedia than any one U.S. state, and the way it is shows incredible US-centricism. We are not Conservapedia, and this should be moved as soon as possible.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    Does the Macedonia page show incredible Greece-centricism?
    Conservapedia has assigned the Georgia title to the U.S. state, which we haven't done (and absolutely shouldn't do).
    As usual, the argument is that not discriminating against U.S.-related subjects is the same as discriminating against non-U.S.-related subjects. —David Levy 23:41/23:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support: A country is more important than a fiftieth of a country. --AnY FOUR! (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    How many times must it be explained that "importance" is not a relevant criterion? —David Levy 06:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    In that case I vote that Georgia be an article about my pet duck and the rest is moved to Georgia (other). +Hexagon1 (t) 01:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    That ignores the things that are relevant criteria. —David Levy 04:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    Importance falls under the 'common sense' field of any rational argument for what should be the primary article here. +Hexagon1 (t) 11:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't. We don't base our articles' titles on the subjects' importance; we base them on the likelihood that our readers will seek a particular topic. As demonstrated by the traffic data, the article about the country is viewed only slightly more often than the article about the U.S. state is. —David Levy 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    'Who would search for this' is not, nor has it ever been a valid argument in debates and consensus, as a user recently touched upon in an AfD. And don't take it so personally, no need to hound every vote and comment. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    1. The likelihood that our readers will seek a particular meaning of a term is—and always has been—one of our main naming criteria. The debate to which you linked contained the unrelated (and false) argument that an article should be deleted because its title is an unlikely search term.
    2.If you don't want people to take your comments personally, please refrain from attacking their nationality and accusing them of perpetrating outrageous and offensive claims that they never made. Also note that this is a discussion (not a ballot), so we're supposed to reply to one another. —David Levy 03:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    I am aware this is a ballot, you just seemed to be taking things a little too personally - it wasn't intended as an attack. Also, I don't remember taking your nationality (or anyone's for that matter) and using it against them - I don't even know what your nationality is. Oh, and could you point me in the way of relevant policy? Again, not an attack, it just seems I may need to brush up on my knowledge of it. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    1. No, this isn't a ballot.
    2. You wrote the following: "I still think that the audacity of American editors to suggest a 1/50th of their country is more important than all of another is beyond belief, so my vote stays." If you read this page in its entirety, you'll find that we're suggesting no such thing. It's very frustrating to have my viewpoints dismissed based on the assumption that I'm an arrogant, ignorant American.
    3. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (which I cited elsewhere on this page). —David Levy 08:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Fine, you win. Hurrah for you. I really can't be bothered with your pedantic monologue reading esoteric interpretations of things I have said in the past. Your outright arrogant hostility, persistent refusal to actually debate and abuse of my slips-of-tounge was most WP:AGFy though, looking forward to doing this again some time. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Do you realize that you're simultaneously accusing me of refusing to debate and criticising me for debating? I find the former complaint particularly odd, given the fact that I've engaged in a great deal of debate on this talk page and the fact that you previously told me that there was "no need to hound every vote and comment" (which seems to discourage debate).
    I'm certainly not trying to twist your words, and I apologize if I misinterpreted something that you wrote, but hurling insults is no way to rectify the matter. No offense, you're hardly in a position to take offense (given the fact that you just got done misrepresenting comments that you hadn't bothered to read, based purely on the assumption that Americans would argue something arrogant). —David Levy 12:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Cheap and uncalled for, especially given I basically conceded - my heart hadn't been in the debate from the start leading to several significant errors and slips of tongue. Though if you keep this up you certainly won't be getting a Valentine from me. I haven't been too offended by anything said and I hope you didn't misinterpret anything I've said as offensive either. Good luck. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed, what was I thinking when I apologized for any misunderstanding and attempted to resolve our dispute instead of walking away with the "win"? How utterly cheap and uncalled for!
    And how dare I take offense to your description of my conduct "arrogant"? I'm an American, so I obviously had it coming. —David Levy 05:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    And that's downright childish. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, no! Does that mean that I "won't be getting a Valentine" from you? —David Levy 10:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support: *No Conservapedia editors here, I see... I support having Georgia (country) at Georgia, with a dab at the top saying "For the US state, see Georgia (U.S. state), and for other uses see Georgia (disambiguation)".-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support: Names of countries should always be unqualified: this should probably be applied to Macedonia as well, except that there is a dispute about the name of that country. No susch dispute exists in the case of Georgia. --rossb (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    Please explain how your assertion that "names of countries should always be unqualified" jibes with our naming conventions. —David Levy 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support. Azerbaijan and Mongolia are the articles about countries although there are also Iranian Azerbaijan and Inner Mongolia. Alæxis¿question? 10:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support as per HisSpaceResearch. --Grahamdubya (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support^oo The current arrangement is a joke, completely US-centric. What if I were to move the Queen Victoria article to (Victoria (person)) and the Aussie state of Victoria to Victoria? This arrangement is beyond belief. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Driven insane by David Levy. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    By that logic, you should be voting for option 2 -- Victoria is a disambiguation page, just as Georgia is.older ≠ wiser 01:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ha, I'd forgotten, talk about a bad example. :) Queen Victoria is a distinct entity from Victoria, though if they were both commonly known as 'Victoria' my argument would apply. I still think that the audacity of American editors to suggest a 1/50th of their country is more important than all of another is beyond belief, so my vote stays. Good on you for catching my slip up. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    Except, of course, for the fact that we're suggesting nothing of the sort. —David Levy 04:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    And you are suggesting what exactly? +Hexagon1 (t) 11:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    Please read what I've already written on this page. —David Levy 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    My response above addresses what you have said. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment (Not a vote for this option!)- I noticed that a lot of folks arguing for having the country article at Georgia are claiming that Georgia is the only country with a qualified Wikipedia title. But this is not the case. The same is true for the country of Macedonia. The country's article is not at Macedonia, but rather at Republic of Macedonia. Macedonia, like Georgia, is a disambiguation page, and like this one it disambiguates between the country and a subnational entity of the same name - a region of Greece.
Comment - The term Macedonia is under a naming dispute and controversial, that's why, the country is called the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) in the U.N. among other places. The same cannot be said about the country of Georgia. Epson291 (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Republic of Georgia redirects to the country article, and if folks think that this would be a more dignified title then I would have no objection to the country article being moved there. (And I wouldn't even insist that it be called the "Former Soviet Republic of Georgia" ;-) And I doubt anyone else would, after all, Georgia is a republic. Maybe this would be a good solution to make everyone happy, or is that overly optimistic?... Helvetica 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Great idea! Only, what would happen if one were to search Georgia? ;) Qaanaaq 10:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The same thing that happens now, they would end up at this here Georgia page, which would still be a disambig page, just as the Macedonia page is. The only thing that would be different would be that the country article would not be at Georgia (country), but would be at Republic of Georgia, just as the country of Macedonia is at Republic of Macedonia. Helvetica 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The problem with this is that the official name of Macedonia (the sovereign state) is "Republic of Macedonia", while Georgia (the sovereign state) appears to be officially called just "Georgia". To be honest, I think there is possibly a case to have Macedonia go straight to the page about FYROM, as I would guess that this is what most people who type "Macedonia" are looking for. However, the difference is that Macedonia not only refers to the Greek region and the sovereign state, but also to a larger region that includes both, as well as an ancient country in the same region. There is also the fact that there is a real dispute over the use of the name: most international organisations do not use "Macedonia" to refer to FYROM, but they all use "Georgia" to refer to Georgia (country). Bistromathic 13:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not much of a problem as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure what the full official name of the country is, though if it were only Georgia then that would be rather unusual, as most countries have longer official names - ie the "Republic of France," the "United Kingdom of Great Briton and Northern Ireland," the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan," the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan," etc. But at any rate, the official names are somewhat arbitrary - especially when they're not even in the language which that country speaks. But in any event, the fact is that Georgia is a republic and that the phrase "Republic of Georgia" is commonly used. [1]

Of course it's not exactly the same situation as Macedonia, but it is fairly similar. There's a region of one country with the same name as a region of another country. So Wikipedia disambiguates :-) Helvetica 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. Strong support, this isn't just a case of the Russian state of Georgia vs. the US state, in such a case a disambig would be right. This is a case of a country vs. a state. Countries should totally take priority.--79.66.253.136 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Option 2: Maintain the status quo. Everything stays where it is (the US state at Georgia (U.S. state), the country at Georgia (country), and the disambiguation page at Georgia.

Option 2 discussion

See others: Option 1 / Option 3 / Option 4 / Option 5
  1. Hux 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC) - Reader usability trumps all: unless new evidence comes to light showing a dramatic difference between the number of page hits to Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state), it makes the most sense for Georgia to remain a disambiguation page, since a very, very large number of people will be typing "Georgia" and expecting either one or the other. (PS Guys, sign your name, not "support" or "oppose". Obviously you support that option otherwise you wouldn't be posting in that section! ;))
  2. Support I think most of the support for the other side of this debate feel that there's an American-centric bias so they want to combat that. That's understandable but I feel that the status quo is more logical and pragmatic. Let's face the facts here the majority of English speakers (and Spanish too probably) when they type in Georgia they're expecting the state to pop up, but instead a disambiguation page appears and they're introduced to the small Caucasian nation (actually the disambiguation values the small nation more as it's listed first). As an American when I think of Georgia I think of the state. I know it's different for Europeans so why not compromise? --Tocino 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, according to the most recent move discussion at Talk:Georgia (country)/Requested move - July 2006, even in 2004 "Georgia (country)" was getting roughly twice the number of page hits per month as "Georgia (U.S. state), suggesting that a significant majority of people were looking for the country, not the state. While that data is obviously out of date, logically, with the proportion of non-US Wikipedians rising every year, one would expect that gap to increase, which suggests your argument doesn't hold up. -- Hux 04:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    Interesting... maybe they are more curious about the country because they don't know much about it. I still maintain, however, that the majority of English speakers when they hear the word Georgia, they think of the state. But that's not really the issue... both are important articles so why should one get prioritized over the other? The status quo works. --Tocino 19:54, 9 August 2007
    I agree - that's why I voted for it. :) -- Hux 10:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    English speakers don't just live in English speaking countries. A country with a 1000 years of history and a sub-national entity like Georgia are not of equal importance. Does any other county use "(country)" disambiguation? Jooler 08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Importance, while a significant factor, is not the sole criterion by which articles are named; in cases of likely confusion reader usability trumps it and the fact is that a very large number of people type "Georgia" and expect to see the US state. This really isn't about "systemic bias", as you suggest above. It's a simple matter of making Wikipedia the most useful encyclopedia for everyone.
    As to your other question, I don't know of any other countries with article titles containing "(country)", but I suspect that's because Georgia's case is probably unique: where there is such confusion we usually have the option of using the country's official name, which almost always resolves the problem (e.g. People's Republic of China and Republic of China). Here we have no such luxury because the official name of Georgia, according to its constitution, is simply "Georgia". -- Hux 13:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    A very large number of people type "Battle of the Bulge" looking for diet information. A very large number of people type "Java" looking for coffee or a programming language and a very large number of people type "Turkey" looking for information on poultry. in 2000 a very large number of people probably typed "Chad" looking for information about paper with holes punched in it. A very large number of people probably type "Jordan" looking for information on a topless model. A country really should always have priority over any other entity. Jooler 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Why? --Eyrian 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Jooler: The absurdity of some of your examples notwithstanding, I would actually support some of them being moved to disambig pages: "Turkey" seems like an excellent candidate; "Jordan" might be as well. I'm not so sure I'd feel the same way about "Java" though, since the programming language is much more of a niche concern (plus Java isn't a country, so even by your logic it doesn't appear that it must stay at Java).
    Ultimately, what we have here is a simple difference of opinion. The point where we differ, however, is that I'm providing a specific rationale for my opinion whereas you appear to be saying that a country "should always have priority over any other entity", just because... If I'm wrong and you do have a rationale for this then by all means let's hear it! -- Hux 19:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    The absurdity of the examples particularly the first one is deliberate but it has served to highlight that you have no sense of proportion in these matters. The Java example was there for a reason. Java is the most populous island on the planet home to 125 million people. For a staggering number of people who do not deal with the programming language on a day to day basis the primary meaning of the word is the island, but to some people the Island is not as notable as a slang term for coffee or a programming language that will probably be forgotten in 50 years time. The systemic bias that we see with Georgia was in operation with Java too. For a long time the Wikipedia page at Java was a disambig page and it was a long hard fight against the systemic bias to get it moved see Talk:Java (disambiguation). Even now some people still bring up the idea of moving Java to Java (island) and making Java a disambig page (see here). To say '"Turkey" seems like an excellent candidate"' is oh so telling. Beside the fact that in this specific instance it has been demonstrated above that Georgia the country gets more hits than Georgia state it's a simple matter of natural order of precedence that countries deserve a higher level of priority than sub-national entities. The President of Georgia and the Governor of Georgia would not be sitting at the same table at a state banquet the President would be at a higher table. The country Georgia has more import real or imagined than the State. Jooler 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Is population a completely unfair metric? There are more people in the U.S. state than in the country. These kinds of arguments just go round and round in circles, there's no conclusive end. A dab page is the way to go. --Eyrian 22:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Jooler: Well, I asked for a rationale for your opinion other than "just because" but it seems you can't provide one. It also seems you are reading all kinds of things into my argument that aren't there, which is a shame. I think we'll have to just agree to disagree. -- Hux 06:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Your rationale is that a "large number of people type "Georgia" expecting to see the US state". Which possibly holds as a valid argument for making Georgia US state the page at "Georgia" but does not hold for making Georgia a disambig. People who expect the US state are going to be disappointed anyway. Putting Georgia the country on this page does not demote the US state in anyway. Currently is it at the same level as Georgia in Vermont. Will such people be any more confused by seeing a disambig message at the top of the page rather than a complete disambig page? I would argue no, unless they are so stupid that they think people in Atlanta don't speak English and I suspect that anyone who was expecting the US state would already be aware that that is not the case. Thus the argument around whether Georgia the country should be at Georgia has nothing to do with what people looking for Georgia US would expect. The population of Georgia the state and Georgia in Vermont are irrelevant to the debate about Georgia the country. The question is about whether countries should have the first pick at such names. The rationale is that countries in virtually every kind of context DO naturally have priority over other geographical entities. For example with rivers see Niger, Bosnia, Gambia, Jordan again etc. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica has prioritised the country above all else. here. Jooler 07:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    "Your rationale is that a "large number of people type "Georgia" expecting to see the US state"." No, that's too narrow. My opinion is that in general we should use disambig pages wherever two (or more) topics with the same name have a more or less equal level of popularity. My rationale for this opinion is based on the fact that usability is central to the Wikipedia concept and supersedes almost all other concerns. Therefore, given that a very large number of people will type "Georgia" and expect to see either the country or the state, we should use a disambig page rather than confusing large numbers of people by sending them an article about an entirely different topic.
    "The question is about whether countries should have the first pick at such names. The rationale is that countries in virtually every kind of context DO naturally have priority over other geographical entities." Unless I'm very much mistaken, countries have such priority in political contexts; it does not follow that they must remain prioritized in all contexts. For example, if we make a list of all the countries and subnational units in Europe and order it alphabetically, the UK and its constituent parts would appear in the list in the following order, "England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, United Kingdom, Wales", even though "United Kingdom" has political priority over the rest. Why? Because this is an alphabetical list and therefore different rules apply. Similarly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore different rules apply. If you disagree then (to pick one of no doubt thousands of examples) can I expect to see you open up a discussion on the talk page of Truth or Consequences demanding that the article about the town in New Mexico be moved there?
    "For example with rivers see Niger, Bosnia, Gambia, Jordan again etc. " I would argue that the reason why those entries go to the country articles has nothing to do with respecting political priority and everything to do with the fact that in each of those cases the country is much more well known than the river, i.e. it's about usability. (EDIT: "Bosnia", in fact, goes to a disambig page, with no mention of any river by that name.)
    "Even Encyclopaedia Britannica has prioritised the country above all else." Um, the Encyclopedia Britannica works in exactly the same way Wikipedia works: if you type "Georgia" into the search box you get sent to a disambig page. Furthermore, Britannica articles use numeric URLs, allowing article titles to be identical without causing internal conflicts. Wiki software works differently, so I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of this comparison. -- Hux 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    The Bosnia river (for which the country/region is named) is on here as Bosna. Yes Britannica does use a different system and can have multiple pages using the same title, so it's a bad example, but I wouldn't call the results of a search a disambiguation page. Your example of Truth or Consequences is akin to Westward Ho! where the town is named after a novel of the same name (including the Exclamation mark), where the town takes precedence. So that's a bad example on your part as there is no consistency. Possibly this has to do with notability. Today more people have heard of the town than the novel. Jooler 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    Jooler: "that's a bad example on your part as there is no consistency" On the contrary: it's exactly consistent with my argument, which is that the structure of Wikipedia is, first and foremost, about reader usability. Truth or Consequences goes to the article about the game show, because when people think of that phrase the vast majority think of the game show and not the town. Meanwhile Westward Ho! goes to an article about the town, because when people think of that phrase the vast majority think of the town and not the novel. By the same logic, Georgia should be a disambiguation page because when people think of that word, two different meanings very commonly arise: that of the country and that of the state. -- Hux 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. All Georgia articles should be as they are, on equal article footing. GoodDay 00:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. This should be common sense. Most people on English Wikipedia will be looking for the state, so at the minimum "Georgia" should take them to a disambiguation page. Zchris87v 08:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    The evidence suggests that your common sense reasoning is incorrect. More people look at the Georgia country page (see above). The country has been quite prominent in the news recently see 2007_Georgia_missile_incident It's of more import to people outside of the USA than you might think. Jooler 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Arguments pertaining to age, geographic size, population, governmental structure, and relative importance are utterly irrelevant. This has nothing to do with any of those things. All that matters is the likelihood that someone searching the English Wikipedia for "Georgia" seeks an article on a particular subject. We aren't disrespecting the country by not assigning it the "Georgia" title; we're simply acknowledging that the U.S. state is another very common usage of the name (with other notable meanings less commonly used). For the record, I also believe that it would be ridiculous to assign the "Georgia" title to the U.S. state. —David Levy 22:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    the likelihood that someone searching the English Wikipedia for "Georgia" seeks an article on a particular subject - It has been demonstrated above that the majority of those are looking for the country. Jooler 08:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    Okay someone moved the data from this page. But here it is showing that the country gets twice as many hits as the state and more than everything else put together. Thus by your own reckoning the country should be at this page. Jooler 08:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    Those are very limited statistics from May 2004. Can you cite recent data culled over a longer period? Also, I see no mention of any of the other articles linked from Georgia, so I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that the country's article gets more hits "than everything else put together." —David Levy 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    Jooler: "It has been demonstrated above that the majority of those are looking for the country." And? What does the majority of hits have to do with anything? The relevant issue is that both articles are searched for by large numbers of people, therefore there is a need for a disambiguation page so that one of those groups of large numbers of people won't find themselves at an article they weren't looking for. I'm really failing to see why this appears to be such a difficult concept to grasp. -- Hux 21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    Hux I'm replying to the above comment where the rationale was the likelihood that someone searching the English Wikipedia for "Georgia" seeks an article on a particular subject. So the majority is entirely relevant to this question and in this case it is not just a slight majority but almost three times as many hits for the country (if those figures were reflected in votes on this poll then Georgia would be moved). As for "finding themselves at an article they were not looking for" - as I've already pointed out - anyone looking for Georgia the US state or anything else is already going to feel that disappointment because they hit a disambiguation page, so your argument makes no sense. In fact moving the country would actually lessen that number of people who felt disappointed. David I was referring to the other Georgia pages with hit counts on that page. Unfortunately Wikipedia stopped publishing this kind of data shortly after so there are no other stats to judge by. However I see no reason why those stats that were available at the time should be discounted. It certainly calls into question your rationale as it indicates that the majority of people want to see the page about the country. Jooler 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    1. "The other Georgia pages with hit counts on that page" are the disambiguation page and this talk page, so I fail to see the relevance.
    2. You see no reason why a tiny, easily skewed sample from more than three years ago should be discounted?
    3. Your argument is far more applicable to a case in which a term has only two notable meanings. If that were so, it definitely wouldn't make sense to have a disambiguation page at all (and Georgia would be the only logical location for the country's article). But because there are so many meanings of "Georgia" other than the country and the U.S. state, moving the country's article to Georgia would add an extra step for many readers. —David Levy 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    Three years ago or yesterday is irrelevant. It was provided as evidence three years ago and is just as relevant today. Tiny? - The stats for two other months showing similar results were also provided at the time - see Talk:Georgia/Archive1#Consensus Easily skewed? How so? Let's use Occam's razor and not multiply the entities by making suggestions about how the sample might have been tampered for some reason. Most of the other items listed on the diambig page would never be at an undisambiguated Georgia page and the remaining ones bar the state and the country are nowhere near as noteworthy. There are only 2 meanings of any significance that might use the word Georgia in any unqualified manner. Jooler 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, a one-month or three-month sample (especially one from 2004) is tiny. No, the time period is not irrelevant. In 2004, Wikipedia received far less traffic than it receives now. That's why all of those numbers are very low, and that's why the data easily could have been skewed by a single external factor. I'm not suggesting that any sort of tampering occurred, but a link from one moderately popular blog to the country's article during that three-month period (or longer) easily could account for the numerical difference. (That's merely an example, of course.)
    Your point about the other meanings of "Georgia" is a straw man argument; I haven't made the absurd claim that any of them are anywhere near as prominent as the two primary meanings are. My point is merely that they exist (and collectively add justification for the current setup). —David Levy 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    There you go multiplying the entities without any evidence. It looks like you moving the goalposts because the evidence doesn't support your argument. Jooler 08:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    He's not "multiplying the entities" or "moving the goal posts". He's pointing out the fact that three months of Wikipedia hit stats from three years ago are not very reliable as an indicator of the current popularity of "Georgia (country)" versus "Georgia (US state)". Notwithstanding the cogent reasons he provided, Wikipedia has seven times the number of articles now than it did in 2004 (source: archive.org's Wikipedia page for May 26, 2004). That difference in size is easily enough for the current hit stats for those two pages to be very different. (And that's before we even get to the fact that the change in article count is itself a ridiculously conservative indicator of Wikipedia's growth; I'll bet my house on the fact that the number of Wikipedia readers is far more than seven times larger now than it was in '04.) -- Hux 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Jooler: "the majority is entirely relevant to this question" No, it isn't. The fact that one page gets more hits than the other is irrelevant. The relevant issue is that both pages are popular and that several other, less popular meanings also exist. That being the case, having a disambiguation page makes the encyclopedia more useful to the reader. Given that Wikipedia's prime goals are openness and reader utility, structural changes that make the site more useful for readers should be prioritized over those that make it less useful. Therefore, "Georgia" should be a disambig page. Again, I really don't see why this concept is so difficult to understand.
    "As for "finding themselves at an article they were not looking for" - as I've already pointed out - anyone looking for Georgia the US state or anything else is already going to feel that disappointment because they hit a disambiguation page, so your argument makes no sense." Firstly, you misunderstood my argument - I said "article" for a reason; a disambig page is not an article. Secondly, your assumption that everyone will be disappointed if they arrive at a disambig page, given that disambig pages are inherently meant to be helpful. Finally, and most significantly, it is inarguable that arriving at a disambig page is going to disappoint people less than arriving at the wrong article. That's the point you're still missing. -- Hux 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Both may be "popular" but one is three times as popular as the other. As I said earlier if there were three times as many people voting for one option over another int his poll the majority option would win. Majorities are signficant. A disambig note at the top of the page is also helpful and (assuming the ratio of the quoted stats remains the same) for somewhere between two-thirds to three-quarters of those who arrive at the page they have found the page they were looking for anyway! There is no reason whatsoever to think that the ratio of hits should have changed over that period. If any kind of shift might have happened then one might surmise that the penetration of the Internet into the less wealthy nations would have shifted the balance away from the US-centric universe. Jooler 21:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Again, Jooler, your evidence that "one is three times as popular as the other" is extremely weak. I've already explained why this is so, and you've offered no refutation beyond sheer repetition. —David Levy 04:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    The evidence is the ONLY evidence we have. You call it extremely weak and I beg to differ. Occam's Razor suggests that the reason for the higher hit count for the country page requires no more elaborate explanation than the very simple fact that more people wanted to look at that page and there is no reason to suggest that there might have been a shift in the ratio that would overturn the the majority for the country page. I might contrast that to your assertion that "Most people on English Wikipedia will be looking for the state" for which we have no evidence whatsoever. You may have a gut feeling or a perspective born of common sense that this is true but there is not a shred of evidence to support it and the only evidence that might support it suggests the opposite. Jooler 12:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    This is all very interesting, but you're all missing a key point. Consensus can change, but a discussion formed by 10 people cannot be applied to override one formed by 150, particularly when the arguments on both sides are of similar strength, and nothing fundamentally new is being said. --Eyrian 13:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    Again, I cite the data's age not to suggest that the ratio is likely to have changed in the interim, but because you're citing an absurdly small sample (one that cannot be trusted to have provided useful information in the first place). As I noted, Wikipedia had relatively little traffic in 2004, so a single external link of even modest prominence easily could have resulted in a major spike (in terms of percentage). Imagine, for example, a popular blog linking to the country's article. If this were to occur now, the number of hits would increase by a much smaller percentage than it would have in 2004 (because many more people are using Wikipedia now). We have no way of determining what external factors existed during the three-month span in question, and the numbers are far too low to be deemed relatively immune.
    It was Zchris87v who stated that "most people on English Wikipedia will be looking for the state." I've made no such claim. —David Levy 16:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    "Imagine, for example, a popular blog linking to the country's article" - that's called multiplying the entities. Like saying "imagine, for example a force generated from human thought that can transfer ideas from one person to another". Okay so you didn't make the assertion above but "All that matters is the likelihood that someone searching the English Wikipedia for "Georgia" seeks an article on a particular subject" for which I took to mean that the likelihood of someone searching for the country was not as high as the evidence suggests. Jooler 19:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    1. I provided an example of a realistic scenario. I'm not saying that it definitely existed; I'm saying that we don't know. The cited data is far too limited to reasonably draw a definitive conclusion.
    2. My point was that both the country and the U.S. state are extremely likely search targets. —David Levy 19:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    Jooler: "Both may be "popular" but one is three times as popular as the other." Once again, this is not relevant when structural changes to Wikipedia are about making the article more useful to all readers. "Georgia" (the country) is very popular. "Georgia" (the state) is very popular. Numerous other, similar articles connected with the word, "Georgia", exist. Therefore a disambig page for "Georgia" is, overall, more useful to all readers than sending everyone to the country page first. It's as simple as that.
    "Majorities are signficant." Majorities are not always significant in every situation. This is one such situation.
    "There is no reason whatsoever to think that the ratio of hits should have changed over that period." There are several reasons to conclude that the data indicating that hit ratio should not be relied upon in the first place.
    "The evidence is the ONLY evidence we have." Firstly, one does not rely on the only evidence one has if that evidence is unreliable. Secondly, even if that evidence was 100% accurate it still doesn't mean that "Georgia" should go to the country article, for the reasons already given. The only relevant thing about such hit ratio evidence is whether or not it shows that enough people click on "Georgia" (the country) AND "Georgia" (the state) to warrant a disambig page.
    "Occam's Razor suggests that the reason for the higher hit count for the country page requires no more elaborate explanation than the very simple fact that more people wanted to look at that page" This a circular argument. It's also irrelevant why people are clicking on particular articles. The only thing that's relevant is whether there are two (or more) articles with similar names that have reached a certain, indefinable level of mass popularity.
    "that's called multiplying the entities" No, it is not. It's called "reasonably questioning the reliability of a source". You're seriously misusing the concept of Occam's Razor here! -- Hux 21:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support There is no compelling reason to change the status quo. I often check the incoming links to the page "Georgia" (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Georgia) and can say from personal experience that the clear majority of them are for the U.S. state. Because the links change often, I have copied a list of the incoming links from the main namespace as of this moment to this subpage. As you can see, most of those links are intended to go to the U.S. state page. I think that this data is more relevant than that of page views from three years ago. If the country page were moved to "Georgia" the process of link sorting would be significantly more difficult if not impossible. There are frequently new pages and lists created that contain every U.S. state, as well as ones that contain every country, both of which link to simply "Georgia". Since a number of editors are apparently unaware that the U.S. state page does not occupy "Georgia", we should not intentionally make things confusing for editors or readers. Khatru2 00:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. 'Support' Wikipedia should strive to have pages go to what is the most common search, lacking a clear and overwhelmily clear most searched, it should head to a disambiguation page. It seems obvious to me that no one really can say which people are looking for when searching for Georgia. (Madrone 07:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
  8. Support, for all the same reasons that have been given each and every time! Why does this keep getting brought up?! Helvetica 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support: surely things such as planets could be thought of as significant enough to have their own articles without any type of disambiguation, but the article is still named Mercury (planet). Why should something like this be different? Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    No one lives on Mercury --AnY FOUR! (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. This is exactly what disambiguation is for: a case with no primary topic. The Georgias are of roughly equal importance. One is larger but is a constituent unit of a country and one is smaller but is an indepedent state. The status quo is fine. — AjaxSmack 09:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. The title is clearly ambiguous and there is no incontrovertible evidence that either use is "primary". older ≠ wiser 11:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support - There is clearly no one primary meaning of "Georgia", so a dab page makes the most sense here. -- Rai-me 17:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support Have there been issues with the current format beyond nationalistic pride on both sides? This seems to be the simplest format to help people find either the country or the state. Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Quite obviously there have, considering very few people here are actually from Georgia (country). --Schcambo (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    Nationalistic pride can include opposition to the perceived (and sometimes justified) perception that Americans are ignorant of other countries. Unfortunately, all too many debates evoke a "United States vs. the rest of the world" mentality from one or both sides. —David Levy 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support - as I describe under "proposed March 15 move" below, the population, GDP, and land area of the U.S. state, plus Wikipedia page views, are greater than or not much less than that of the nation. Note also that national status is transitory - the current nation was once a USSR state, and the current state once fought a terrible war in pursuit of status as a nation; and in fact for both federal unions, "state" and "nation" are synonyms distinguished only by connotation and subsequent events. Wnt (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. Thompsontough (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support for four reasons. First, fixing redirects and so forth will be time-consuming, plus in the future when inattentive editors write [[Georgia]] and mean the US state, the link will go to a totally wrong page rather than a semi-wrong one. Second, while en.wiki is international, it's heavily used by Americans who are far more likely to be looking for the state, plus (probably) Canadians, Mexicans, etc. Third, the disambiguation page makes it no big deal to navigate between the two subjects (which are roughly equal in importance, though of course a scientific comparison would be hard). Finally, the US state has been called Georgia for a long time (almost 300 years), while the country is still called Sakartvelo in Georgian and has come to be called "Georgia" in English fairly recently. Biruitorul (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, seeing as every page that formerly directed to Georgia (country) would simply redirect to Georgia, there would be no double-redirects, and so no problem. Also, we've bots to solve that kind of thing. Also, checking the list of pages that link to Georgia, the only actual article I can find is Georgiana, about the etymology of the name. Also, as the figures below show, only about 27% of our readers are American. Finally, the English name of the country has been traced to "various Persian empires (536BC-638AD)", which is slightly more than 300 years. Whatever vote you wish though, it's your choice. --Schcambo (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    The issue with the incoming links to the page "Georgia" is that there are new ones added all the time, even on a daily basis. As I mentioned a few months ago, I frequently sort through the links and find that more than half of them are in reference to the U.S. state. I even made a page illustrating a snapshot of all the incoming article links here. If the page about the country were located at "Georgia", editors would start linking directly to that page to refer to the country. As a result, the number of incoming links would be overwhelming and nearly impossible to sort. Either every link intended for the country would have to be piped with the "country" suffix and redirect, or there would be a growing number of undetected links intended for the U.S. state. (Furthermore, I would guess that many editors would fail to understand why the "country" suffix was being added to the links, and would attempt to revert the changes so that the links once again go directly to "Georgia".) I don't believe there are any bots that can perform the sorting process. At the very least, the incoming links indicate that there is no primary usage, which is the essence of the debate. Thus, the status quo should remain. Khatru2 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Your argument is moot, your justification is simply that 'having the country at Georgia is too much of a hassle so just keep the disambiguation.' --AnY FOUR! (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    No, Khatru2's argument is that moving the country's article to the title presently occupied by the disambiguation page will hinder efforts to assist our readers in finding their desired article (a paramount concern). And you ignored Khatru2's point about there being no primary usage. —David Levy 00:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Option 3: Move Georgia (U.S. state) to Georgia and the current Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation)

Option 3 discussion

See others: Option 1 / Option 2 / Option 4 / Option 5

Option 4: Redirect Georgia to Georgia (U.S. state) moving current Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation)

Option 4 discussion

See others: Option 1 / Option 2 / Option 3 / Option 5

This option allows redirecting the term "Georgia" where it would seem to be most used, long term. Currently, "Republic of Georgia" redirects to the country.

  • Support. Wikipedia is edited by "skeleton crews" of volunteers, and ease of their editing articles is a high priority. Of course, bots could retro-rename the "Georgia (U.S. state)" in articles, if ever that were needed. However, there are auto-generated templates that put state name "Georgia" in templates as "Template:Something_Georgia_(U.S. state)_something" which is becoming VERY tedious, but note those templates don't care that "Mississippi" was a tribe, then a River, or ship names, etc. As far as feeling insulted, how do you think people in the state of Georgia feel about neighboring NOT "Alabama the tribe" and NOT "Mississippi the River" and NOT "Florida the Spanish word" (the neighbors of Georgia), but pick on Georgia because...? If the Republic of Georgia wants to revolt (again) and become the "Republic of New York" still consider where "New York" should point. Older name-usage as a precedence is not a sole priority, but should balance against actual people editing the articles. Bear in mind, Wikipedia is not "universal truth" but, rather, whatever editors can stomach before quitting. As you can tell, I am concerned that people get frustrated by wiki-peculiar names (and stuff), and quit wikipedia. Let "Georgia" redirect to the state and count the number of times people are inconvenienced by that usage. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, I see now the native word for the country of Georgia is translitered as "Sakartvelo" from the Georgian language; the native word for the U.S. state is "Georgia" only, as from the colony of 1733. Why didn't they refuse that name, since "Georgia" was already a major area in Eurasia in 1733, or was it? The term "Georgia" needs to be documented as a common English term for that Russian border region from 1733: wasn't that region named "Kartli-Kakheti" in 1783, fifty years after the British colony Georgia? -Wikid77 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Moving away from emotional arguments: As Hux says in discussions above, reader convenience is everything in these decisions (although I guess I come to a different conclusion as to what is most convenient). This is not a universal encyclopedia, it is an English-language encyclopedia meant to be useful to English-language readers. Among English-language readers, the U.S. state of Georgia , not the country, is far and away the topic that readers think of when they search for "Georgia". Even the population of the U.S. state is about twice that of the nation — and the GDP is far greater as well. Cultural ties, population and GDP all indicate that readers of the English-language Wikipedia will more likely be searching for the U.S. state rather than the nation for many years to come. Precedence in Wikipedia redirects should not be based on emotion but solely, or almost solely, on usefulness. This option is better than Option 3 only because it involves less work to make the change. If there were a way around that objection, I'd support Option 3. Noroton (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Option 5: Redirect Georgia to Georgia (country) moving current Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation)

Option 5 discussion

See others: Option 1 / Option 2 / Option 3 / Option 4

Option 6: Redirect Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation) moving current Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation)

Option 6 discussion

See others: Option 1 / Option 2 / Option 3 / Option 4 / Option 5

Support. This is basically the status quo (which I think is the most useful setup) but implemented in a way that uses canonical names. This way, it would be easier to change the redirect in the future without moving pages, or to fix undiscussed moves by rebellious editors. --Sapphic (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Other

If this is closed, this should have the closed poll templates attached. There is a requested move open now. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgia_(country)/Requested_move_-_July_2007&oldid=1252142351"