Talk:Georgia

Contents

1 Poll 1.1 Option 1: Move Georgia (country) to Georgia and the current Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation) 1.2 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. 1.3 Option 3: Move Georgia (U.S. state) to Georgia and the current Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation) 1.4 Option 4: Move Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation), and keep a redirect from Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation). Leave Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (country) where they are. 2 More comments (since April 2004) 3 All your pages are belong to US 4 Older comments (pre-2004) 5 Data 6 True or false?? 7 English Wikipedia is out of step 8 Population figures 9 Ending the poll (True or false??) 10 Challenging question 11 Any sensible ideas to achieve consensus? 12 Consensus 13 U.S.-centric level 13.1 Taiwanicentrism? 14 Move Georgia (country) to Republic of Georgia and move Georgia (U.S. state) to State of Georgia.

Poll

Hey All, I just wanted to see how many people are still interested in this topic as a resolution might be nice sometime soon. I see this has dragged on for more than a year. So without further ado I present - The Georgia Moving Poll.

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

1. Burgundavia
2. Moravice
3. James F. (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
4. Zoney 23:51, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
5. Mintguy (T) 08:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
6. Jitse Niesen 13:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC) - The country has a far greater claim to have an article at Georgia than the US state.
7. Dori | Talk 14:22, May 12, 2004 (UTC) The current Georgia (which is a dab page) most definitely needs to be at Georgia (disambiguation)
8. Matthewmayer - I think a national entity should 'win' over a subnational entity, regardless of the populations.
9. Bogdan | Talk 20:42, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
10. SimonP 22:30, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
11. ChrisO 09:19, 16 May 2004 (UTC) - as Matthew says, a country clearly has a higher precedence than a subnational entity.
12. Isomorphic 19:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC) - The country is of greater significance than the other entities with which it shares a name.
13. Ben Arnold 04:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC) - I can't believe this is actually under debate! One use is a country, a member of the United Nations. The other is a regional subdivision of a country, and not even among the most significant subdivisions of that country. I'd further argue that all entries that refer to the U.S. state should be listed as <place>, Georgia, United States. (But only since <place>, <state> seems to be the standard for U.S. places; <place> alone would be fine with me.) (New Zealander)
14. –Hajor 21:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) Sovereign nation trumps subnational entity.
15. Zigger 14:52, 2004 Jun 8 (UTC) - just because I don't like the Georgia article being the only? Wikipedia article about a contemporary nation with a qualifier in its title.
    And because of the "visits" data. --Zigger 05:08, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
16. Dmn 23:56, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
17. Rhymeless I decided that I couldn't stand it the way it was; changing my vote. 22:45, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
18. Morwen - Talk 16:08, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
19. Yath 00:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) -- Why is this even being disputed? Are the rumors about U.S. nationalism grossly underreported? (Yath is a U.S. citizen.)
20. What Matthewmayer said. And what yath said. 211.27.78.86 00:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
21. David Gerard 00:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) As we used to say to our 'Merkin friends on Usenet, "The World Is A Very Big Place."
22. Why the hell has this not been done yet? This is not the Americapedia, althought strong evidence supports otherwise. Earl Andrew 21:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
23. A country name should _never_ ever be a disambig page -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:%c6var_Arnfj%f6r%f0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 04:07, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
24. Wikipedia is an international, rather then US only encyclopedia. Global naming conventions should take precedent over local ones. Naive cynic 11:38, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
25. Jxg 03:16, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) Nations are hierarchically superior to national subdivisions.
26. Historie Pete 15:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) I can't believe there is a poll for this!
27. Trilobite (Talk) 23:06, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) For all the reasons above. This is ridiculous.
28. Lankiveil 07:30, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC) I can't see what the issue is. The only proviso would be to perhaps add a link at the top of the article referring to Georgia (the country) something along the lines of "For the US state of Georgia, click here".
29. Blargle B Targlebo 23:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'm disgusted there's a poll for this. How can the wikipedia be NPOV with examples of americo-centrism like this.
30. ElBenevolente 00:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
31. {Ανάριον} 14:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) Hurray for neverending polls! It's insane to keep a sovereign nation-state at another location just because a US subdivision shares its name. This should be a no-brainer. {Ανάριον} 14:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
32. Chuq 00:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
33. Ziggurat 23:48, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'm from an English-speaking country, and when I think Georgia I think the nation. Good point, if I hear someone talk about Georgia, unqualified, I think immediately think "central asia" not "region of the United States". If someone was going to talk about the US state it would be normal for them to qualify it, e.g. "Atlanta is a city in the US state of Georgia" or just "Atlanta is a state in the US". Since it's normal to qualify the US state in speech, it seems reasonable to qualify it as the title of an article. Ben Arnold 05:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC). I think it's a North America vs Europe thing. I'm Canadian, and when I hear an unqualified Georgia I think of the state first. Kirjtc2 00:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
34. David 5000 21:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
35. Furius 20 Nov 2004, I'm suprised this is an argument- a several thousand year old country with a plethora of articles linking off it versus a three-hundred-year-old subdivision.
36. Hazhar 21:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) This is insanity. no-one cares about some pointless square in the US. The country is more important. does Georgia (state) have it's own language? a 1000s year old history??? if Unitedstatesians want their state, they go to Georgia (state). "Georgia" is where the country should be.
37. Mozzerati 21:20, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
38. Sabine's Sunbird 18:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
39. Levan 17:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) The capital of Georgia was founded more than 1500 years ago - just a note for the users who think that the state of Georgia, nothing more than an adminsitrative unit of the U.S., should take precedence.
40. Shanes 08:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
41. --Monkbel 12:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC) It is SOOO obvious!
42. Tokek 04:19, 12 May 2005 (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.

1. Docu
2. Maclyn611
3. radiojon
4. RADICALBENDER★ 21:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
5. Etaoin 21:53, 11 May 2004 (UTC) - Otherwise, you pretty much guarantee that people from one Georgia or the other will be offended.
6. ♬ bdesham 22:19, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
7. Ed Cormany 04:21, 12 May 2004 (UTC) - I think of peaches, not the Middle East, but that is obviously not the vast majority opinion.
8. Pædia - Maybe move '(country)' to '(nation)' or '([R]republic [of])'. See Encyclopædia Britannica [1] (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=115482) [2] (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=121282) and Columbia Encyclopedia from Encyclopedia.com [3] (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/G/Georgia.asp) [4] (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/G/GeorgiaU1S1.asp).
9. RickK 04:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC) (though why bother, when people ignore the results of polls and do whatever they damn well pleasse?)
10. — Matt 11:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
11. Ram-Man - This is the fairest option, but pending current place name disambiguation policy reform, i'd say even this poll may be overriden soon.
12. Infrogmation 16:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
13. Cyrius|&#9998 00:48, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
14. Option 3 might go a little far, but let's think about the common usage. Not only that, but the state (I believe) has a larger population. Meelar 00:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
15. David Cannon 01:55, 17 May 2004 (UTC) I think there should be some way to make the listing of states and countries uniform. My own preference would be to make all nations stand-alone entities, subdivisions of nations should be identified as such. Therefore, Georgia should apply to the nation. I am happy with Georgia (U.S.State) for the state, but I wonder whether that is uniform with the other states (I haven't checked yet). Perhaps something like Georgia State would be appropriate; we could make all the states uniform with California State, Alabama State, etc. Or am I going too far?David Cannon 01:55, 17 May 2004 (UTC) Have I misunderstood your comments or did you put your vote in the wrong section? Trilobite (Talk) 23:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
16. mav Just the Atlanta area alone has more people than the entire country of the same name. But keeping Georgia as a disambiguation page makes it easier to make sure links go where they intend. Otherwise a great many links to Georgia meaning to go to the state will be mixed in with legit links wanting to go to the country.
17. Decumanus | Talk 02:48, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
18. Warofdreams 18:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC) Both are well known. A user searching for "Georgia" could well be looking for either. So the disambiguation page is the ideal solution.
19. Enchanter 18:57, May 19, 2004 (UTC). Links to Georgia could mean either the country or the US state, and keeping the disambiguation page makes it easier to ensure they go to the right place. Article naming should mainly be about making things easy for readers and easy for contributors.
20. jengod 21:19, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
21. Minesweeper
22. older≠wiser 20:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
23. gadfium 08:43, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
24. Maximus Rex 21:58, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
25. Goobergunch 20:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
26. Seth Ilys 00:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC). There is clear disagreement as to which of the two entities is more prominent. Under Wikipedia's NPOV policy, when there are two sides with opposing positions, we don't take sides, but state both side's positions factually. While not immediately applicable to article titles, the best analogy here would be to present both sides at Georgia by using it as a disambiguation. However, people generally make a great fuss over article titles when the real issue should be the article content. - Seth Ilys
27. blankfaze | •• (http://www.livejournal.com/users/blankfaze) | •• 04:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
28. Smack, for the record, a U.S. citizen.
29. Wclark 14:22, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC) The country "should" be primary, but more visitors will expect the US state. The status quo is a good compromise.
30. Academic Challenger 05:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) Agree with Warofdreams.
31. Benc 20:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) No need to sacrifice a perfectly logical disambig page in order to appear less U.S.-centric.
32. Sarge Baldy 11:18, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
33. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 02:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) In my opinion, disabiguation pages belong on the main entry, not as "blah (disambiguation)" with a link from the main entry for what someone might think would be the more important item - not everyone will share the same opinion over which is more important, so leave that decision to the users, not the editors. NPOV, people ...
34. Davodd 11:27, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) Article (disambiguation)-type pages are ugly and not intuitive. Davodd 11:27, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
35. ed g2s • talk 21:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Regardless of population/size 'Georgia' means a state to a vast number of people, and a country to an equally vast number of people. With two popular meanings (as demonstrated by the existence of this poll) it just hast to go straight to disambiguation.
36. Stormie 23:35, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) Both meanings are significant, neither much more than the other imho. Also there's always going to be people accidentally linking to Georgia when they mean one or the other, so it's best that that should be a disambig page.
37. dreish 01:04, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC) The status quo is consistent with other names that lead to more than one significant Wikipedia article. I live in Georgia (the state), and I agree that the country should have precedence, but the name by itself should lead to a disambiguation page (where the country should be listed first, as it is now).
38. newkai They seem equally important to me.
39. John Gaughan 16:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) - this debate is not just about what is more important, the state or country, but all the other Georgias too. I believe there are enough articles here to warrant a disambiguation page as the default.
40. [[User:Eequor|ηυωρ (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Eequor)]] 18:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) (but see option 4)
41. Kirjtc2 01:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) On an English-language wikipedia, an English-language jurisdiction with a larger population should not be subservient to a country that has only been independent for 15 years and doesn't speak English. A disambiguation page is an appropriate compromise.
42. ChrisG 22:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) There is a lot here for disambiguation.
43. Delirium 08:17, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) The US state has many more people, but the country is a country, so disambig. here.
44. Fishal 16:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) This is a matter of the most helpful option. Yes, the country is globally more important than the state. But keeping this page a disambig is most helpful for our users.
45. Vystrix Nexoth 12:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

1. Jiang 20:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) This is in response to all you anti-American bastards who refuse to accept the supremacy of our Godly nation and the inevitable fact that your country is being assimilated by ours. Which Georgia has a higher population? a larger area? Do any of you dare answer this?
2. Second choice. anthony (see warning)
3. Neutrality 01:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. Wclark 14:51, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC) As of this writing, there were 491 links to Georgia (country) and 693 links to Georgia (U.S. state), therefore it's reasonable to suppose that making Georgia pertain to the state would be more useful for contributors, and better match majority intent. Logfile stats indicate that Georgia (country) gets about 3 times the traffic of Georgia (U.S. state) so majority intent is far from clear. I withdraw my approval of this option.

Option 4: Move Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation), and keep a redirect from Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation). Leave Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (country) where they are.

1. Docu
2. Abigail 00:12, May 15, 2004 (UTC) (What's the difference between option 4 and option 2?)
3. +sj+ This should become general dab policy. Every dab page should have a (disambiguation) suffix, since noone ever intends to see a dab page when they go to an unqualified article-title.
4. Policy be damned, this is the best solution. anthony (see warning)
5. This is best. Or leave as is. -- user:zanimum
6. I originally planned to vote for option 2, but given that the Georgia article is a dis-ambiguation page that is too large to get to the template without scrolling, I say it needs this title to clarify that it is a dis-ambiguation page and not a list. Georgia guy 23:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am confused about the reasoning behind Option 4. Pædia 04:34, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

For my take on why Option 4 is a good idea, and further thoughts (both ChrisO's and mine), see these proposals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_(places)#Another_proposal). +sj+ 08:19, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

Note that option 4 is a violation of policy and will never be implemented unless policy is changed. --Jiang 20:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

At this moment, it appears that, defining Republicans as those who want option 1 and Democrats as those who want option 2, there are only 35 Republicans to 44 Democrats. I feel sure the Democrats will most likely win. 66.245.73.105 23:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I feel confortable being defined as a Republican :-p Dmn 00:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is just a designation I use for convenience; what names would you have picked?? 66.245.11.175 14:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe "republicans vs. constitutionalists (or democrats)", or "progressives vs. conservatives". Pædia 05:18, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)

I object to being labelled a Republican. Please discontuinue this classification. Mintguy (T) 17:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As do I. James F. (talk) 02:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I, too, take offense to being labelled a fascist. If anything the two terms should be swapped. {Ανάριον} 22:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, either republicans or democrats can be fascist. Pædia 21:11, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

More comments (since April 2004)

If the only issue is links to Georgia that should go to Georgia (U.S. state), I would volunteer to go around and change "Georgia" links every couple weeks or so. —Bkell 08:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#Hierarchy_of_place_names_and_disambiguation_guidelines for a proposed rule on disambiguation hierarchies - if adopted it would provide a consistent basis for what to call identically-named geographic areas of differing levels of status (including the two Georgias). -- ChrisO 11:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that Georgia should point to Georgia(country), as we should follow the guidelines, as well as it is kind of insulting to Georgia to have them the same as the state 64.180.73.13 05:56, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I have moved all the links that should link to the US State to link to the US State but left the ones to the country. I feel we should let the country have the place. Burgundavia 09:50, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

The effort required to change everything around is nowhere near worthwhile for any supposed benefit. Nobody is being subordinated by the current method. Consider as well that after the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776, the U.S. state had two presidents, serving the year until the Articles of Confederation were signed in 1777. Likewise, the republic was under the Soviet Union at one time. The state has a larger population and much larger economy than the country as well. There are equal arguments on both sides, therefore neither should be moved.  ?radiojon 04:57, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

Yes, but is it not about who is bigger or smarter or has more money. It is about principal. Consider this example. The country of Outer Noexistia has a state called The United States of America. This state has a population of 3.5 billion and an economy 3 times that of the USA. However. USA(the real country) should have the page United States of America even though The United States of America in Outer Noexista is bigger and (probably) would have more global pull.

Now for the non rational arguments. For the record I am a Canadian. I feel that this is an example of the United States members of Wikipedia exerting influence beyond that which I feel is reasonable. Burgundavia 05:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

BTW, to respond to Burgundavia, if there were a locale somewhere in the world named "United States of America" with 3 billion inhabitants, it certainly would push our fair nation out of its current article-name! +sj+

One of the most important features of wikipedia is clarity. In all fairness then, it doesn't matter who has the biggest economy, the most people, or the "principle" of being the Georgia page. "Georgia" should go to the disambig page. That way, no matter what you are looking for, you will be able to find it. This is not about who is right or wrong in regard to any arbitrary measuring scale, it is a matter of letting users find what they are looking for. Maclyn611 06:52, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Very well said! I'm tired of both the ignorance of Americans, and the frequent over-reactions to it from other places. The point is of course that Wikipedia must remain NPOV, and let users find what they are looking for easily and intuitively. The status quo on this issue has served Wikipedia well thus far, and should remain.

Let "Georgia" point to the country and "Georgia (U.S. state)" point to the U.S. state. No matter the relative wealth or influence of the U.S. state, it is not a sovereign nation; it is subordinate to a sovereign nation. This is just a matter of principle, as well as consistency. Only on the English wikipedia would this "debate" even exist. As for redirecting misdirects and disambiguating links throughout the wiki, this isn't really much of a problem. There is a human-assisted bot "Robbot" which, while not perfect by any means, can quickly and efficiently find and fix all disambiguating problems for a certain term. The argument "we can't fix all the links" is bogus.

Georgia, the US state, is sovereign. Just because it is jointly sovereign with the US doesn't change that fact. Should we consider England a non-sovereign entity as well, just because it shares its sovereignty with the EU? As for this only occuring on the English Wikipedia, I imagine the familiarity of people with the state vs. the country differs in other languages. With Georgia in English, I expect there is a large percentage of people who have heard of both. anthony (see warning)

Ohh dear. England isn't "sovereign", England is part of the United Kingdom which is "sovereign". The UK does not share "sovereignty" with the EU. Ohh dear. Mintguy (T) 16:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. This is similar to suggesting that... Queen's County, New York is sovereign, but shares its sovereignty with the US; Anthony, please stay accurate. :-) James F. (talk) 00:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Counties within US states are not sovereign. It's not similar to that at all. Please see http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/dulsover.html, or just do a search for "dual sovereignty" yourself. anthony (see warning) 12:59, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All your pages are belong to US

Seriously - this is shocking that this situation exists in the first place. A sovereign nation state is not placed above a member state of a federation? The page should certainly have a link top of page to the US state, but the country should appear as the main article.

May I point out that having a poll is nonsensical, this is an issue of there being more US wikipedians than any others - and mob rule being imposed.

I'm just VERY glad the US doesn't have a state named Ireland! Or Europe! Hey, I guess I should just be happy that Dublin, Ireland gets the Dublin page, as opposed to some upstart town in the US! Why don't we just disambiguate Paris, London, Maine, and a host of other places!

I've met people from the US who thought I was pulling their leg when I talked about Georgia the nation. If anything, putting the country page here should alleviate some ignorance! Zoney 00:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Well now, I agree the nation should come first on the dab page, which will alleviate some ignorance, but there should be such a page to avoid confusion. And all editors need to learn to qualify their Georgia references. +sj+ 11:10, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

How about a poll only amongst people from outside the United States and Georgia? I'll go annotate my vote with my nationality. Ben Arnold 04:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I voted the way I did not because I thought it was the best choice, but because of people choose not to debate the facts but the motives. We put articles where people are most likely to find them. If there are more Americans here than Eastern Europeans/Western Asians, then we go by where the Americans would choose to find things. When it comes to the location (and not content) of articles, there's nothing wrong with being tilted towards one end of the globe. The location of articles is for the convenience of our readers. Face the inevitable truth that our country will asskick yours. Bow to us.--Jiang 03:53, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that the place-name hierarchy is silly, as are the invocations of the U.S. state's superiority of population, land area, etc. I'd reckon that any person over the age of five residing in St. Petersburg, Florida is fully aware of the existence of "that other" St. Petersburg. On the other hand, most people living in the U.S. probably don't think of the sovereign country of Georgia unless reminded of it, and likewise most English-speakers in the former Soviet Union don't hear very much about the U.S. state of that name. This recognizability should be the only criterion for establishing priority of disambiguation. It works well enough for most topics in this encyclopedia, and almost always concurs with your vaunted hierarchy anyway. When someone mentions Georgia, the meaning depends on whether that person lives in the U.S. or the former Soviet Union. It's an inherently ambiguous situation, and we should recognize that ambiguity with an equal disambiguation. --Smack 23:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Older comments (pre-2004)

I think it's a bit insulting to the sovereign nation of Georgia not to have this page hosting the page about the country and to move the disambiguation to Georgia (disambiguation) Mintguy 08:52 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In theory, this may be ideal, but in practice, all the links to the U.S. state would never be disambiguated. I'm not sure where it was, but I think I already read a debate (even a vote?) about this. Oddly, I couldn't find it by looking for links pointing to Georgia .. --User:Docu

I don't understand what you mean by "all the links to the U.S. state would never be disambiguated". Until I moved them the other day the there were still alot of links for the state pointing here. Mintguy 07:55 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If Georgia would be the page for the country, we would have a lot of links about the state pointing there. I disambiguated the links once before, when I added Georgia to Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages. The opposite solution, to use Georgia for the state, wouldn't necessarily make it easier. -- User:Docu

"If Georgia would be the page for the country, we would have a lot of links about the state pointing there." ..and... your point is? A link to here is wrong for either state or country at present. Mintguy

How about moving the country here and then have a link a top saying if you are looking for the county/city/rock band/kind of chicken feed/etc go to this linkBurgundavia 09:52, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I feel the current solution is easier to maintain. -- User:Docu

I also think the country deserves to be here. Its no different from St. Petersburg, Florida and St. Petersburg, Russia, and dozens of other such situations. - SimonP 14:53, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion:

• Georgia - I think that Georgia (country) should be moved there. - SimonP 15:14, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The two meaning are in common use. This is a classic example of where a disambig page is needed. uriber 17:57, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree with Uriber. Leave it as disambig page. -- Infrogmation 18:37, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • I agree for the Georgian language version of Wikipedia, not the English language version Marshman 18:53, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • This is one of those issues that illustrates wikipedia's bias towards wealthy English speaking areas, especially the United States, as opposed to the rest of the world (a bias that reflects the internet in general). A Google search in English will point mostly to the state, because most English language websites are American. If you could confine a the search to non-American English speakers the result would, however, show the country being far more important than the state. As an indication of this I searched in French, which should represent a neutral non-American view. There "géorgie état unis" is much less common than "géorgie russie" (and since Georgia isn't even part of Russia the difference is probably even more pronounced)- SimonP 19:13, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • That may tell you what is appropriate for the French wikipedia, but is not very indicative for English. Why is this on VfD anyway? None of these pages are ever going to be deleted, this is a content issue. Stan 19:28, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Finish move

Population facts:

• Demographics of Georgia: 5,019,538 (July 2000)
• Georgia (U.S. state)#Demographics: 8,186,453 (2000)

--Menchi 21:31, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

So countries are less important than American administrative districts? Has this wikipedia turned into US.wikipedia.org? There're even fewer people in the country I live in than in Georgia. Crusadeonilliteracy 16:07, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Data

Please note that the country article has had more visits than the state article, by a factor of ~3. See Georgia article data. --Zigger 05:08, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

Couldn't this also mean that more people are familiar with the state, and are thus not clicking on that article, as opposed to the relatively unfamiliar nation? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Possibly, but I have no idea about the motivation of people who did not visit a particular article. Just that of those looking for a Georgia, ~75% end up at the country article. --Zigger 13:32, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

---

True or false??

True or false: a generalized version of option 1 in the above poll is "Make the English Wikipedia reflect Asians more than Americans". 66.245.29.74 20:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

False. RickK 20:25, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Well, what is the correct generalized version?? 66.245.29.74 20:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Try "Make the English Wikipedia, which is not the American Wikipedia, be less US-centric." Though "Countries are more important than administrative divisions" probably holds more water :) The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 02:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is out of step

As far as I can tell of the languages where Georgia could mean either the US state or the country, the English Wikipedia is the only one which has the country subordinate to every other country, in that is is disambiguated as Georgia (country). Mintguy (T) 22:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is the opinion of having Georgia (country) to Georgia logical in any way independent of the statement that "a country is more important than a division of another country"?? Name some areas where the English-speaking population is very large where the people don't know the names of the U.S. states. 66.245.70.19 22:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't precisely understand the meaning of the question. Mintguy (T)

The question is I want to see the logic that the country is the dominant meaning. This isn't very logical to people familiar with the states of the United States. I want to know if there are any English-speaking people who are not familiar with the names of the U.S. states. 66.245.70.19 23:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually I suspect if you asked everyone in the USA to name all fifty states there'd be an embarrassingly large number who couldn't do it. I also doubt there are all that many people in the USA who could even place Georgia the country on a map. I fear there will be people in Georgia the US state who don't even realise Georgia the country exists. I suspect this sort of ignorance is the real reason why some Americans seem to believe that it's ridiculous for an obscure far-away country they've barely heard of to be given precedence over a subdivision of their own nation. Please, enlightened Americans (I know you exist in your droves), help your countrymen see the absurdity of their position on this matter. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What makes you think that everyone any country outside of the US knows the names of all of the US states? Do you know the names of all of the counties in England? I don't see how this question is in any way relevant anyway.Mintguy (T) 23:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't have the names of the counties in England in my long term memory. IMHO, there are plenty of people who know the states of the United States. The United States is one of the most developed nations and how is it logical for Wikipedia to have a more Asian POV even though Asia doesn't have very many nations as developed as the United States. 66.245.70.19 23:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So you are saying that Georgia, US is more important because more people have refrigerators? Mintguy (T)

Err; by this argument, I should know every province of China, India, and Russia (amongst others), because they contain lots of people are world economic powers? *sighs* Also, Georgia is a European country as much as it is an "Asian" one -- it's considering joining the EU James F. (talk) 00:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Population figures

From the article: "...with a population of n,nnn,nnn as of yyyy". Someone's trying to prove a point (about relevant importance? no one's arguing in favor of settling this matter on the basis of population, are they?), but I can't think of any other disambiguation page with throwaway demographic stats. They don't belong, and I'm going to stamp on them. (The fact that the figs are also involved in an ongoing low-intensity edit war doesn't help matters, either.) –Hajor 00:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Several disambiguation pages have population figures on it. They are generally useful in lists with US towns and CDPs. They are not necessarily that useful here, but definitely more interesting than noting that the Caucasus is in western Asia. As for the edit war part .. that's another, unrelated question. -- User:Docu

Ending the poll (True or false??)

True or false: the poll is scheduled to come to an end soon. 66.245.78.88 23:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Challenging question

Suppose there were separate Wikipedias for Americans and Europeans and each one had its own Georgia moving poll. What would the results of each poll probably be?? 66.32.246.242 23:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The results would probably be drowned out by howls of indignation from the disenfranchised Asians, Africans, and Australasians. And that's allowing a broad interpretation of "American". –Hajor

Any sensible ideas to achieve consensus?

Probably not, as I really mean "can we get this article moved to Georgia (disambiguation) and put the country page here?"!

Really though, should we RFC the village pump again? Find a different way to count votes? Poll USians separately from "rest of world" and then muse over the findings?

Personally, I consider it disgraceful that this is being held up to ransom by those from the US. Georgia, USA is not a country (and a member of a federation, not a union, despite the misnomer - it's even less of a country-type entity). Georgia (sort of/mostly/maybe Europe) is a country.

zoney | talk 13:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree I think it's exceedingly disrespectful to single out Georgia as the only sovereign nation that is disambiguated with (country). I think it should be a rule that national entities outrank all others. Mintguy (T) 13:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that theoretically (as most "rules" in Wikipedia seem to be) that is the case. zoney ▓█▒ talk 14:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ultimately, this boils down to what are looking for. Given the similar magnitude of the two pages, to place either above the other represents a clear violation of the NPOV policy. We should be finding in favour of neither, and keeping the neutral balance that the current situation brings. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139

Except that it can't be "neutral" when every other country is at the page with its official name. Well, OK, Ireland is at Republic of Ireland - which is only an official description, but apart from that. Hmmm... Does Georgia (country) have a proper title/description... zoney ▓█▒ talk 01:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Nuts - unfortunately, no, it's no longer the Republic of Georgia)

In what way is it a "clear violation" of NPOV to state that a country should have a higher priority than a subdivision of another country? Mintguy (T)

It isn't, but you know damn well that's not what this discussion is about. This isn't about which place is more important, it's about which article is more important. We should not be practising honour by association. The country may be on a higher administrative level (soverign nation vs. federated state), but that does not automatically make its article more important or relevant. In fact, I'd wouldn't give long odds on there being more queries leading to the state than the country. Giving main title preference to one article requires (or, more correctly, should require) the following conditions:

1. The article (body, not subject) proposed for the main title is clearly and significantly more important than all other uses.
2. All other articles must be sufficiently unimportant to merit the lesser coverage.

I believe that the country is more important than the state, but not that the country article is therefore automatically more important. It would be safe to say that while, under most circumstances, Georgia (country) is important enough for main title placement, it would also be safe enough to say that the article at Georgia (U.S. state) is not unimportant enough to allow the country to take main title. I'd also chance that if you asked most native English-speakers about Georgia (remember, this is en:) the U.S. state would come to mind first. This fact alone should demonstrate that it is not sufficiently unimportant. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139

You said - I'd wouldn't give long odds on there being more queries leading to the state than the country- This assertion has already been proved wrong. Please look at the comment from Wclark above he saiys - Wclark 14:51, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC) As of this writing, there were 491 links to Georgia (country) and 693 links to Georgia (U.S. state), therefore it's reasonable to suppose that making Georgia pertain to the state would be more useful for contributors, and better match majority intent. </s>Logfile stats indicate that Georgia (country) gets about 3 times the traffic of Georgia (U.S. state) so majority intent is far from clear. I withdraw my approval of this option. - clearly then you would agree that Georgia (country) is more significant to Wikipedia. Mintguy (T) 08:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Moved above to preserve comment integrity) The "assertion", by which I think you actually mean "guess", has not been proved either way. What logfile stats? Where is the evidence to support your claim? "XYZ said it's so" is not evidence. If I read that comment correctly, it doesn't even support your own argument. Let me take that gun before you shoot your other foot. "... majority intent is far from clear." How does that register as a vote for the country? Especially when the poster of that comment has voted to maintain the status quo? Since you seem intent on hammering a question which has already been answered, I'll turn it back on you. In what way is it not biased and non-NPOV to arbitrarily place the country article in main title position? Like I've always said, it's a decision for hte visitors to make as to which is more important for their research, not for you to make for them. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 21:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

wClark stated "As of this writing, there were 491 links to Georgia (country) and 693 links to Georgia (U.S. state)" later he said "Logfile stats indicate that Georgia (country) gets about 3 times the traffic of Georgia (U.S. state) ". The former statement is in contrast to the latter one so he concluded - " so majority intent is far from clear". I was adressing the specific point you raised in your "guess" (with implied certainty) that "[there are] ... more queries leading to the state than the country". The former point made by wClark is not relevant to this specific point. A number of Wikipedia stats can be found at Wikipedia:Statistics. The log stats for March 2004 can be found at http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200403.html (WARNING: this is a 38mb file). These stats indicate that for March, Georgia (country) received 2312 hits, Georgia (U.S. state) received 1335 hits and Georgia (unqualified) received 763 hits. Not quite the 3:1 of whenever wClark checked but still a significant lead for the country. Mintguy (T)

If Georgia had a fuller name (e.g. "Republic of Georgia") we would be able to use that, like we do for Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Ireland, People's Republic of China, et al. Is it disrespectful for these other countries then, since they prefer their conventional short form over the official names? We're not attempting to single out Georgia. It's just that software wont allow two articles with the same name to reside at the same place. The purpose is disambiguation. --Jiang 02:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's certainly the case but the net result is that Georgia ends up being singled out. Mintguy (T)

Why is this a problem? Are we to sacrifice NPOV and the principles of relevance? Are any of you here actually from Georgia (country)? Didn't think so.

Hello Anon. Two points. I am positive some of our readers and editors are from are from Georgia. If I was from Georgia, what differerence would that make though? Secondly, what has NPOV got to do with it? Mintguy (T) 08:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing. NPOV should easily be the single, most-important consideration, above all else, even the concept of state vs. country. The question is not about "some of our readers and editors", but the people arguing here. If you were from Georgia, which you're not (rendering the whole comment safe to ignore), what difference would it make to you presonally to have (country) at the end of the article name? For the reasons posited above, to give either article main title would be biased. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139

You said - "to give either article main title would be biased." - This implies that to place any article at an undisambigutated spot spot implies a POV. I don't think this is the case. I think it is simply a matter of convention. If we were to declare a policy that "national entities have a greater priority than sub-national ones" then this should solve this particular problem that has split the Wikipedia community. I am adressing the title of this section which is "Any sensible ideas to achieve consensus?" Mintguy (T) 08:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This implies that to place any article at an undisambigutated spot implies a POV. No, it doesn't. You are extending a generalisation from a special case which needs special treatment. You still have answeredonly one side of the argument, attempting to prove your case through implication and spin. Obviously you believe the nation is important enough for top placing, but "It's a sovereign state" doesn't really cut it, when technically many of the US states are also sovereign. They set their own laws, and have their own independent governments. It works similarly to how EU law is applied here in the UK. At any time, the government can repeal the act that gives EU law precedence, at the cost of their membership in the EU. You need to answer two questions: (1) What makes the country article (not the country itself) more important? (2) Why is the state article unimportant? Unless you can make a good case for both, Option 1 is not likely to be enacted. Chris 15:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok time for a review. Earlier, after you said - "Given the similar magnitude of the two pages, to place either above the other represents a clear violation of the NPOV policy. " - I said - "In what way is it a "clear violation" of NPOV to state that a country should have a higher priority than a subdivision of another country?". I was talking about that being a proposed policy for Wikipedia, to sort out a disagreement that has split the community, but you seem to have misinterpreted this because you replied - "It isn't, but you know damn well that's not what this discussion is about. This isn't about which place is more important, it's about which article is more important." - importance means subjectivity, I am not arguing about importance I am talking about hierarchy. NPOV has nothing to do with this, as I stated before. You then said "I'd wouldn't give long odds on there being more queries leading to the state than the country" - I said - "This assertion has already been proved wrong. Please look at the comment from Wclark" - I should have also pointed out the earlier section on this page, Data (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Georgia#Data) where User:Zigger had given a link to a breakdown of this data at Georgia_article_data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zigger/Georgia_article_data). You said "What logfile stats? Where is the evidence to support your claim? "XYZ said it's so" is not evidence." - so I pointed you to the Wikipedia:Statistics page where you can find these stats for yourself. In a different thread you said "For the reasons posited above, to give either article main title would be biased. " - I'm not clear what "reasons" you are referring to, (perhaps NPOV?, but again I ask what has NPOV got to do with suggesting that we enact a standard rule that national entities should supercede sub-national ones? It is merely a matter of adopting (or not adopting) a convention for disambiguation purposes, NPOV doesn't enter into it. Still I decided to tackle the question of "supposed" bias by saying - "This implies that to place any article at an un-disambigutated spot implies a POV.", you replied - "No, it doesn't. You are extending a generalisation from a special case which needs special treatment." right so you are saying that in all other cases, giving a page to a particular article is not showing bias, but in this "special case" it would be. Huh? why is that? There are plenty of pages occupy the undisambiguated spot and it has got nothing to do with bias. It is a matter of convenience and convention. Georgia is no different. I'm not arguing from a "biassed perspective", I'm arguing from a practical one. However, it just happens however that in the case of [Georgia (country)] I (and a number of other people) happen to think that it is both insulting and anti-Internationalist for Wikipedia to allow [Georgia (country)] to be unique in having this disambiguation, so although I have my own reasons for believing that Georgia should not be disambiguated, I'm not using those reasons to argue the case. So leaving aside this personal view, lets tackle a your more recent points. You said "technically many of the US states are also sovereign" - no they are not. Not in the context of what we are talking about which is "independent of, and unlimited by, any other authority". If we are using what I presume is your definition then Bavaria and Saxony are also sovereign. There is no comparison to be made with the EU, not yet anyway. So now you state " What makes the country article (not the country itself) more important? (2) Why is the state article unimportant? ". I don't like to characterise it as important or unimportant, but if you want to look at the broads statistics just look below where Georgia (country) finds itself accessed roughly 3 times as often as the state. If you want to call this "importance" then do so, but as far as I am concerned this has nothing to do with the subjective concept of importance. It is about Internationalism and disambiguation formost. Mintguy (T) 18:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The net effect of changing the status quo includes the likely breaking of a whole load of unqualified links (go fix them all if you like), and relegating the state article to equal placement with a small town of the same name, amongst other things. You still fail to close the argument completely. I agree that the country (i.e. Georgia itself, not the article) is higher on the scale of things than the state (i.e. the state of Georgia, not the article about it), but is the entity (and its associated article) sufficiently unimportant to deserve relegation? You also make a point of it being "insulting" and "disrespectful". To whom? Having looked at the stats, there's not really anything conclusive there either. Were those thousands upon thousands of hits, fair enough, but are they hits or unique visits? Have you discounted regular editors of the articles? It is fairly trivial business to reload a page 2000 times to prove a point (I should know, I've both seen it done and done it myself). Wikipedia is not a travel guide, the CIA World Factbook or the Citizen's Advice Bureau. "Our" (TINW) first duty should not be to "internationalism" (whatever that is - perhaps an American conceit for "admitting the rest of the world exists"), but to making accurate, up-to-date information available and accessible. Political correctness is more of a hindrance than a help. The concept of "internationalism" is nothing but PC, and something we can live without. As for disambiguation, if anything Option 1 makes things more ambiguous. Someone from outside is looking for the state, types in "Georgia" and winds up at the country. How does that help disambiguation? Similarly, someone might want information about ex-Soviet republics, types in "Georgia" and ends up at a page about the US state. Georgia is the only nation tagged with (country) and this is apparently disrespectful. So, similarly, it must also be disrespectful that Georgia is the only US state to be tagged with (state). So, points remaining unanswered and/or entirely dodged:

1. On the grand scale of things, is the state and the article unimportant? (I do not consider a 2:1 majority of hits enough to excuse this)
2. Have you consulted any bona fide Georgians (of either variety) to see whether they feel insulted or disrespected?
3. On what basis is it a safe assumption that most (not merely more, but most) visitors will want either article based purely on the name?
4. Why is political correctness coming before efficient organisation of information?

Chris 03:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You said - ' The net effect of changing the status quo includes the likely breaking of a whole load of unqualified links (go fix them all if you like) - Unqualified links are already broken. A link to [[Georgia]] is wrong for both state and country at the moment. Moving the country page would actually have the opposite effect to the one you state. As for doing this myself, I'd be glad to, I've done it before. We also have bots for this kind of task. The difficulty of moving links is no argument for moving a page.

You then said- .. and relegating the state article to equal placement with a small town of the same name, amongst other things. - The State article is already disambiguated so it would not affect the state in any way whatsoever.

You then said - You still fail to close the argument completely. I agree that the country (i.e. Georgia itself, not the article) is higher on the scale of things than the state (i.e. the state of Georgia, not the article about it), but is the entity (and its associated article) sufficiently unimportant to deserve relegation? - There would be no relegation. The state is would remain where it is now at Georgia (U.S. state)

You then said - You also make a point of it being "insulting" and "disrespectful". To whom? - I'm not arguing from this angle, this is just my personal view. You then said - Having looked at the stats, there's not really anything conclusive there either. Were those thousands upon thousands of hits, fair enough, but are they hits or unique visits? Have you discounted regular editors of the articles? It is fairly trivial business to reload a page 2000 times to prove a point (I should know, I've both seen it done and done it myself). - There is no basis for this speculation. The figures below are for three full months; I would find it hard to believe anyone was deliberately manipulating the hit count and sustaining it over such a long period of time. However I invite you to check the stats for other months and check for yourself.

You then said - Wikipedia is not a travel guide, the CIA World Factbook or the Citizen's Advice Bureau. "Our" (TINW) first duty should not be to "internationalism" (whatever that is - perhaps an American conceit for "admitting the rest of the world exists"), but to making accurate, up-to-date information available and accessible. Political correctness is more of a hindrance than a help. The concept of "internationalism" is nothing but PC, and something we can live without. - It is most certainly not political correctness. In the words of Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia is not an Internet encyclopaedia, it is an encyclopaedia that happens to be on the Internet. I believe that there is a proposed plan that sometime in the future it will be given away on disk and in printed form in places like Africa where regular encyclopaedias are difficult to come by and too expensive. In the main what I am trying to say is that we should be targeting our International audience which is the global community and not the rich (in global terms) people with computers an cheap Internet access in the United States and Western Europe.

You then said - As for disambiguation, if anything Option 1 makes things more ambiguous. Someone from outside is looking for the state, types in "Georgia" and winds up at the country. How does that help disambiguation? Similarly, someone might want information about ex-Soviet republics, types in "Georgia" and ends up at a page about the US state. Georgia is the only nation tagged with (country) and this is apparently disrespectful. So, similarly, it must also be disrespectful that Georgia is the only US state to be tagged with (state). - As stated above the disrespect factor is my opinion and I am not arguing from that perspective.

Your points.

1. It's 2:1 and then 3:1 in May. But you seem to be moving the goalposts somewhat, so I hesitate to ask what you might consider a suitable ratio.
2. Irrelevant.
3. I don't entirely understand the question, but perhaps you might want to check the stats out for the other months if you feel that they might be being manipulated in some way.
4. Misunderstanding of what I meant by Internationalism.

Mintguy (T) 04:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. Point remains unanswered. I might still question the decision if the ratio were 5:1, or more still. The state article is relegated, from "high on disambig list" to "hidden behind another article".
2. I think it's perfectly relevant. A major point of your vote and your argument (despite trying to disclaim it later) is that you find it disrespectful and insulting. Given you're not in either, have you found someone that is, to see how they feel?
3. The decision to move either article to main title would have to be based on the assumption that said article would be the one people are looking for under that title. It is a safe assumption that the Sun will rise at about 6:30 local time here. It is not a safe assumption that I will be up and out of bed by 9am. On what basis would the assumption "the vast majority of people searching for 'Georgia' are looking for the country" a safe one?
4. You talk about "our International audience" as if it doesn't include yourself. Anyway, which should an article title be above anything else? Unambiguous or politically correct? Evidently, in this case we can't have a title which is both.

If all of this gets a little unwieldy for the page as a whole (as it looks as if nobody else is interested ;-) perhaps we can continue from this point onwards on our Talk pages? Chris 05:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. You said I might still question the decision if the ratio were 5:1, or more .. - So there is no satisfactory answer for you here. Well that makes it difficult to argue over. As for "hidden behind another article". What do you mean? That a user looking for Georgia U.S. state has to make 3 clicks instead of two?
2. You said - despite trying to disclaim it later - I never defended it as a rational standpoint but I am certainly not disclaiming it. If you want to claim this as a point of victory then go ahead. My view still stands. I don't contest that your opinion differs.
3. You said On what basis would the assumption "the vast majority of people searching for 'Georgia' are looking for the country" a safe one? - How about Occam's razor?
4. You said You talk about "our International audience" as if it doesn't include yourself. - I don't understand what is intended by this sentence, but the issue has nothing to do with PC I can assure you. PC and me don't get on.

Mintguy (T) 08:35, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Continuing on talk page. Throwing several arguments around at once is getting difficult. Chris

Consensus

Throughout the period since the poll began, option #2 has always been in the lead, but option #1 keeps trying to catch up. In addition, there really is no true difference between option #2 and option #4, so when it comes to comparing the votes, they really should not count separately. So:

• Option #1: 28 voters
• Options #2 and #4: 38 voters
• Option #3: 5 voters

66.245.2.106 14:14, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which is far from being consensus. Besides, there's the question of what is right, irrespective of the "majority" view. If it were not for the self-importance of those from the US, this would not be an issue - Georgia (the country) would be at this page with a dab link. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 17:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Or, alternately, were it not for the rabid anti-US bias of some people, this wouldn't be a discussion, and we'd have the disambig. page. The US state has more inhabitants than the country. Similarly, if there were a Chinese province named France that was bigger than the country of France, I think we should have a disambig. page about it. --Delirium 08:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time for a new poll, with a clean sheet, to see if opinions have shifted over time. Anyway, after the above exchange about statistics, I checked the wikistats for March, April and May 2004. Perhaps someone more conscientious than myself might like to do a more through analysis; but I think that the following stats quite conclusively prove that the natural home for the Georgia (country) page is at Georgia.

• Hits for March 2004 ( http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200403.html - WARNING THIS IS A 43mb FILE)
  • Georgia (country) - 2312 hits
  • Georgia (U.S. state) - 1335 hits
  • Georgia [unqualified] - 763 hits

• Hits for April 2004 ( http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200404.html - WARNING THIS IS A 43mb FILE)
  • Georgia (country) - 1606 hits
  • Georgia (U.S. state) - 821 hits
  • Georgia [unqualified] - 441 hits

• Hits for May 2004 ( http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200405.html - WARNING THIS IS A 43mb FILE)
  • Georgia (country) - 2380 hits
  • Georgia (U.S. state) - 853 hits
  • Georgia [unqualified] - 675 hits

Mintguy (T) 21:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

U.S.-centric level

How U.S. centric do you think Wikipedia is at this moment?? On a scale from 0 to 100 where 0 is completely U.S. centric and 100 is completely non-U.S. centric. the English Wikipedia should stay at about 50. Option 1 of this moving poll certainly looks like something around 90 on this scale; options 2 and 4 are both around 50. Anyone who disagrees with this?? 66.245.79.225 21:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Err.. the question doesn't make any sense, and doesn't really contribute to the debate. Please get an account Mr Anon. Mintguy (T) 22:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Err.. yes I do disagree with this. Your number scale doesn't make a lot of sense I'm afraid, but I don't think the "English Wikipedia should stay at around 50." The English Wikipedia should not be anywhere-centric. Obviously it will always have more coverage of topics relating to Anglophone countries, in the same way that kw: has plenty of articles on small Cornish villages and absolutely nothing on the Tet Offensive or Ulaanbaatar or Jean-Bertrand Aristide. But that's a matter of who's making the contributions and where they're likely to be from. What we are discussing here is a matter of naming policy. Why do you think the English Wikipedia should be intentionally 50% US-centric? That seems to me extraordinarily arrogant. Try looking at it from the opposite point of view (something like this analogy has been used before by someone, but it's a good one). Imagine some internal part of Georgia decided to name itself United States of America. Would you favour moving the current article on the USA to "United States of America (country)" so that it had equal standing with "United States of America (Georgian state)"? I somehow doubt this. And yes, please do get an account, as it makes it much easier for all concerned to keep track of who is saying what. Names are much easier to remember than IP addresses. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is complete nonsense for Wikipedia to have an article titled "United States of American (Georgian state)". There is absolutely no such thing! I'm pretty sure that everyone who is familiar with the term "United States of America" knows its meaning of the country, including people who are also familiar with other meanings. 66.245.79.225 22:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well done. There is indeed no such thing as "United States of American [sic] (Georgian state)". Unfortunately this makes it clear that you're unable to cope with the use of simple hypothetical examples to illustrate a point, so I don't think there's much point in me replying. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I would favor that, if they were of roughly comparable size. If there were a subnational entity with on the order of 300 million people named United States, I think it would be only natural to have a disambiguation page linking to United States (country) and United States (Hypothestanian province). --Delirium 08:11, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I shall repeat: what the hell does it matter whether we disambiguate or not? Why is everyone so earnest about this issue? It's not an issue of facts, or neutrality, it's an issue of what title we list info under. The difference between one option or the other is, at most, one extra click of the mouse. I fail to see why everyone's so argumentative and ego-driven over this self-imposed "controversy." Fishal 15:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You know what, this is dumb. We are making an encyclopedia, not a social commentary. There is clearly some confusion about what "Georgia" means; there are links to it referring to the U.S. state, and there are links to it referring to the republic. So what if people who think "Georgia" is only a state are geographically ignorant Americans. The fact is, they use Wikipedia too, and I think making Georgia a disambig SHOULD NOT imply that we think the US state is just as "important" as the independent republic. The people on both sides who take offense at this just baffle me. Fishal 16:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very good. I still say it's US-centricism. The only reason the country article is not here, is due to the preference of those from the US to have a link to their state here. While others from elsewhere may support this being a disambiguation page, they would be in a distinct minority were it not for the views of those from the US. I would most likely insist on the same were I from the US, but as I am not, I still think the current situation is pants. zoney ♣ talk 23:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh please. This isn't an issue of US-centricism, it is an issue of disambiguation. If this were really an issue of US-centricism, then the fact that the US state has twice the population and several times the economic importance would be used to justify having the US state at just Georgia (not to mention the fact that almost every single article that does link here wants the US state). As it is, there is no preference for either the US state or the country by the same name. This makes it easier to fix misplaced links since no article should directly link to this page. --mav 22:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Taiwanicentrism?

There are precedents for a sovereign nation being delegated to a "lower level" in the Wikipedia "hierarchy." China is almost universally understood as the short form of the People's Republic of China. But if you go to the China article, you will find a general article explaining that the Republic of China, which most people refer to as Taiwan, claims China as well. So the sovereign and independent state of China (PRC) is not in the main China article. Is this Taiwanicantrism? No. But placing the PRC under the "China" name would have confused and/or offended certain users of Wikipedia. And now it is the same with this one. Disambiguating "Georgia" to help out a large body of users does not mean we are biased! Fishal 18:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A. Wrong talk page. B. your argument is no longer relevant after changes were made to the China article. --Tokek 18:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Move Georgia (country) to Republic of Georgia and move Georgia (U.S. state) to State of Georgia.

Why don't we? - 68.72.133.233 01:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)