Talk:Georgia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Vote #'s

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

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

Proposed page moves

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

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

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

Georgia Brown leads to another disambiguation page

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

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

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 The item was outdated (which is why it only mentioned the British singer), and I've replaced it with individual links to the pertinent articles.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

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

Disambiguation overkill

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

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

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

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

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

May 2004 data

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

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

Why hasn't this page been moved yet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. I didn't decide our naming conventions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. (covered above)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambig merge

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with the above that the pages should be merged. This is not a situation like surnames where separation might be desirable. Note that the changes [1][2] were made unilaterally and with no discussion by a new editor. It is not apparent to me that these changes are related to the country vs. disambiguation debate. Khatru2 (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Suggestion

(Since this isn't going anywhere) can I propose that this entire page be archived, a note be placed in the box at the top saying for the two most recent requested moves something to the effect of "consensus undetermined", and then the page can be left free for someone (not me!), at some point, to open a new discussion if they so wish? Thanks. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 18:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

From past experience, another discussion would be started almost immediately. I've already archived the discussion from last year, and would suggest leaving the current one in place for at least several more months. <soapbox>The status quo on this is never going to change anyway. Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, there are huge numbers of disinterested editors who would jump in to prevent any substantive change to the current arrangement, if it looked like that might actually happen — they simply refrain from engaging in any current debates because these arguments are basically just "holy-wars" at this point and completely lack any merit. The sooner people realize that this is simply a matter of unambiguous reference labels and not about "respect" or "importance", the sooner we can stop having these stupid arguments.</soapbox> --Sapphic (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uhhh... So why isn't this about the country? No matter how self-important Georgians (US citizens) may feel, a country automaticaly has precedence - a sovereign country is more important than a state in a sovereign country, anytime. And sheer numbers of inhabitants or economy figures, or Olympics, for that matter have no bearing on this. David Levy/Dodger67 make a good point. And yes, Dodger's point is just an upgrade od Levy's point, even if Levy is not willing to accept it. TomorrowTime (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Article traffic data

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

January 2008

• Georgia (country): 123,132 page views[3]
• Georgia (U.S. state): 100,201 page views[4]

February 2008

• Georgia (country): 116,917 page views[5]
• Georgia (U.S. state): 104,522 page views[6]

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

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

Georgia (country)

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

Georgia (U.S. state)

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

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

• I suggest you gather new statistics, of this month (august 2008), because i have strong suspicions that the growing international use of wikipedia has led to a more accurate representation of the feelings in the rest of the world about the notability of the country Georgia compared to the US province. This encyclopedia is not an American encyclopedia, it's an English one, and English has become an international language, only a tiny part of the people that speak English live in the United States and it is not only unjust to Americanize this wikipedia just because the Americans are richer and more of them use the internet, it's also stupid because the growing internetuse in the rest of the world will quickly diminish this American majority which you cater for. --83.128.22.105 (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I fundamentally disagree that statistics should be the normative principle for deciding this dilemma. On that principle, if Madonna's next album is called Ontology and statistics show this to have 200,000 hits whereas the current ontology page would receive merely 5,000, then Madonna's album would be entitled to the ontology name, and the present ontology article would be relegated to Ontology (philosophy). __meco (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Importance is NOT a naming criterion.

It's extremely frustrating to see people on both sides of the dispute continually argue their positions by pointing out reasons why they feel that one Georgia is "more important" than the other. Again, importance is NOT a naming criterion. This has been noted over and over again, and it's obvious that most people aren't bothering to read the discussions.
It doesn't matter that the country is much older and has an independent government. And it doesn't matter that the U.S. state is geographically larger, has a higher population and has a far larger economy. All of that is irrelevant.
The ONLY thing that matters is the likelihood that readers arriving at the Georgia page seek a particular article. At the moment, the article about the country probably is the more likely target (due to the ongoing conflict), but the available traffic statistics indicate that under normal circumstances, neither the country's article nor the U.S. state's article receives substantially more visits. —David Levy 08:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Importance (notability) fuels page views. So which is more important has direct effect on which article a reader will be seeking. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's true that there often is a direct correlation between a subject's perceived importance and its article's popularity. But in this instance, the gap is too small.

You state above that "traffic data supports the nation of Georgia as the more visited page." This is accurate, but given the large number of secondary uses of the term "Georgia," the margin is not great enough. If, conversely, we had only two "Georgia" topics, I definitely would support assigning the Georgia title to the article about the country (because two-article disambiguation pages are counterproductive). But that isn't the case. —David Levy 13:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What about putting a small explanatory note on top of this talk page, given that this disambiguation page is discussed over and over again. Not that I think that this will stop people posting here again and again without reading the previous discussions. Голубое сало (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point, another talk about it would be spam, and counter-productive and therfor, removable. Stop talking, IT STAYS AT IS IT. All this started because people want to move it, i say, screw it, and just get back to normal talk page crap. f this is whats going to happen, stop the damn talks then.--Jakezing (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• People... Name Georgia is to be used in English and it is mandated by the Article 3.1 of the Georgian Constitution. It is Not going to change. Why wont we post in somewhere so that people do not "trash" this talk page any more?--Satt 2 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Is someone arguing that the county isn't called "Georgia"? —David Levy 06:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh please...

This ongoing feud is ridiculous. As I've said in a comment above, a sovereign state, no matter what always takes precedence over a subnational formation. Always. Full stop. No matter what the size, economy or whatnot. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, afterall. It is, is it not? If you can't recognise this, than I pity you, for your grasp of the world is indeed a poor one. TomorrowTime (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Shut up, your not helping, the page stays at disamb, because if we change it, then we get my fellow americans, being stupid and wanting to change it to the state. The best NPOv, and other crap is to lLEAVE IT AT IS IT, SCREW RULES, SCREW CONVENTIONS, SCREW IMPORTANCE, THIS WHOLE PROBLEM IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU SAYING IT SHOULD BE ONE OF THOSE TWO ARTICLES/.--Jakezing (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On what policy/guideline do you base this assertion? —David Levy 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 *grin* ...     ... oh please let that have been written in humour... As for Jakezing, I think that if you want your opinion to be respected you have first got to learn to type and capitalise (I was happy with the spelling though, so you get a pass there. Now complete module 4, due Tuesday.), and secondly, learn that Wikipedia policies are in place for a reason. Yes, WP:IAR is important, but not universal - if it were, we'd have chaos. You're unlikely to get far with that, instead come up with several reasons for your stance, and be prepared to defend them. Your current point is hardly a reason, if Wikipedia shied away from doing something because its difficult or inconvenient, the whole project would never have been started in the first place. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

When they made wikipedia, they didn't have inmind a few people constatnly arguing over what should be on what article name. Thry didn't have in mind that we'de have 5+ discussions on what is more important, a country or a subNational entity. --Jakezing (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

'They' did, which is why those policies even exist. There have been edit wars far lamer than this, in fact there's a list somewhere, can't locate the link right now though. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 14:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention

I'v requested to a admin that he steps in on this Bs you call a debate. It is not helping the article, LEAVE IT AS IT IS, all this Bs is because you people decided to think "ithe country/state is more important then the other one".--Jakezing (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's plain childish, all that's happening is a debate among dozens of editors intended to gather consensus, including several administrators (eg. David Levy). No rules have been broken, in fact the rules are being followed, despite your wishes to the contrary (per above). Bullshit it may be, but it's important bullshit. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 14:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But why bother vchanging it, that'll lead to more arguements, its best tio leave it as it is and drop the damn idea--Jakezing (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate, if the founders of the Wikipedia shied away from tasks difficult or inconvenient we would never have this encyclopaedia. Saying you can't be bothered doing something correctly in case someone wasn't happy so you'll stick with status quo may be fine for international politics, but it doesn't fly on Wikipedia, never has, never will (hopefully). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Importance IS a naming criterion.

There's no policy here that requires a dab page analysis to based on page hits. To begin with, WP:DAB is a guideline, not a policy. More importantly, the guideline itself states that it should be treated with common sense and should make way for the occasional exception. If there was one place to use common sense it would be in this situation. Let's stop being so close minded with our population counting, GDP counting, and pagehits counting. Let's think in the grand scheme of things and answer these questions: What is an encyclopedia all about? Is it a popularity contest? Who has played a greater role in the grand scheme of world history, the Country or the State? In the future, who will most likely play a greater role, the Country or the State?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 10:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Importance IS a naming criterion.

Please point out where this is mentioned at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I don't see that, but I do see the statement that "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more."

Also, that something "is a guideline, not a policy" (as you described Wikipedia:Disambiguation) generally isn't a strong argument at Wikipedia. Regardless, please note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions is a policy. —David Levy 13:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This debate has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Nobody is arguing that the names of the article is incorrect. The argument is what Georgia should redirect to (a page move would incidentally change the name, but that's not the main point), and for that issue the correct guideline is Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The fact that it is a guideline and not policy makes all the difference in the world because a guideline "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." If there is one place where an "exception" and "common sense" should apply, its right here where, right now.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This debate has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Naming conventions.

False. We're debating what title to use for the article about the country.

Nobody is arguing that the names of the article is incorrect.

Yes, they are; they want Georgia (country) to be moved to Georgia. You've asserted that "importance IS a naming criterion," but you haven't pointed out where "importance" (or anything similar) is listed among our naming criteria.

The argument is what Georgia should redirect to (a page move would incidentally change the name, but that's not the main point),

Under no circumstance is Georgia going to redirect to anything, and the proposed page move most certainly isn't incidental; it's the entire point of this debate.

and for that issue the correct guideline is Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The fact that it is a guideline and not policy makes all the difference in the world because a guideline "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

Once again, you're making the mistake of treating a guideline as something lower than a policy. That isn't the case.

Believe it or not, our policies aren't carved in stone either! They, too, should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Guidelines generally leave more wiggle room, but neither a guideline nor a policy should be disregarded unless there is a good reason to. Disliking a rule (irrespective of whether it's a policy or a guideline) is not such a reason.

If there is one place where an "exception" and "common sense" should apply, its right here where, right now.

Why (other than the fact that you disagree with our naming conventions) is this the case? What special circumstances justify making an exception, and why is this "common sense"? —David Levy 14:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's think in the grand scheme of things and answer these questions: What is an encyclopedia all about? Is it a popularity contest? Who has played a greater role in the grand scheme of world history, the Country or the State? In the future, who will most likely play a greater role, the Country or the State?

See, this is where we run into problems, as the answers to those questions are subjective. (It could reasonably be argued that an entity with a higher population and far larger economy is "more important.") This is one of the reasons why we rely on objective criteria. —David Levy 13:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly we don't rely on objective criteria. Wikipedia is not a mathematical equation with exact rules. Things are made via consensus. To decide this issue we each make a subjective argument why we think we're each right. I made my argument (above) and you made yours. Some people think that your argument is nonsense and some people think my argument is nonsense. Let the consensus decide!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly we don't rely on objective criteria.

...except, of course, for the fact that we do. You advocate a different method that contradicts our usual practices.

Things are made via consensus.

Yes, that's precisely how our naming conventions were determined. But note that "consensus" doesn't mean "whatever more people show up and say." Arguments based on misunderstandings of policy and ignorance of prior discussion (as many of the above are) don't contribute to the consensus-building process. —David Levy 14:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How is a discussion on naming conventions about imporoving this article?--Jakezing (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on what you're asking. —David Levy 20:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How the hell is any of this fighting suppposed ot improve the damn article? DO NOT CHANGE THE DAMN NAME, LEAVE IT AS IT IS, if this is whats going to come from the damn ask to make Georgia Be the countries article, then STOP FING ASKING ABOUT IS FFS. --Jakezing (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that this endless debate isn't getting us anywhere. —David Levy 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's incorrect to frame this issue as a naming convention issue when it really is a disambiguation issue. Wikipedia:Naming conventions concerns the best name for a given article. We all agree about the best name for the county and the state - its Georgia. But since it's the best name for both the country and the state, the point of disagreement is whether Georgia should be the country, the state, or a disambiguation page. This issue is precisely what Wikipedia:Disambiguation is all about. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not suggesting that Wikipedia:Disambiguation is irrelevant. But neither is Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which clearly states that "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more." You claim that "importance IS a naming criterion," but you've yet to cite any policy or guideline that contains such a statement. —David Levy 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions is irrelevant because nobody is in disagreement about what is best name for each article. Everyone agrees that Georgia is the best name for both the country and the state and the parenthetical scheme is the second best for both the county and the state. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions is relevant because you claim that "importance IS a naming criterion," something directly contradicted by that policy (in a section specifically pertaining to how to address naming controversies). —David Levy 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I try not to bold anything I write, as not to give an impression that I'm unconfident in the logic of my statements. Having said that, just because I'm using the word "name" in a sentence doesn't mean that anything I say in the same sentence has to based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions. "My name is Brewcrewer". Are you gonna now ask me where in Wikipedia:Naming conventions there's a policy about my name being Brewcrewer? Geez! Leave alone policy for a minute! As I've responded ad nauseum throughout this talkpage, Wikipedia discussions and consensus building is not about making sure that anything anyone opines or proposes is entirely in-tune with some guideline. I don't mean to be harsh, but your signature is plastered all over these talk pages, yet, you have not contributed constructively to any of these discussions. Editors (not me) have made great intelligent points and you respond by filibustering about guidelines and policies. What Wikipedia is all about is editors having common sense, rational, and intelligent debates about the best way of running this encyclopedia. The point of these discussion is not about showing off our policy and guideline knowledge.

I think that "importance" should be a factor in the naming/disambiguation decisions. You disagree, and think that "importance" should not play a role. That's fine. If you think a guideline and policy forbids any "importance" analyses, then please just ignore all these conversations. Nothing will come of these "importance" discussions because any page move must be reverted right away because it violates a guideline. Thus, going around constantly reminding all editors about guidelines and policies is just a waste of time and space.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I try not to bold anything I write, as not to give an impression that I'm unconfident in the logic of my statements.

You bolded text in this section's very first message. It's a means of conveying emphasis. —David Levy 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're an idiot. He was mocking your use of bold text.87.112.92.116 (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

2. I explicitly referred to "this section's very first message" [from 10:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)], so you might want to rethink your stone-throwing. —David Levy 17:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, just because I'm using the word "name" in a sentence doesn't mean that anything I say in the same sentence has to based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions. "My name is Brewcrewer". Are you gonna now ask me where in Wikipedia:Naming conventions there's a policy about my name being Brewcrewer? Geez!

Huh? I never claimed that you needed to cite that policy. I cited it, and you disputed its relevance. I merely asked you to cite a policy or guideline that backed your assertion that "importance IS a naming criterion." When someone refers to a specific naming criterion that he/she claims exists, how is it unreasonable to request that he/she cite the page on which it's documented?

As I've responded ad nauseum throughout this talkpage, Wikipedia discussions and consensus building is not about making sure that anything anyone opines or proposes is entirely in-tune with some guideline.

I haven't claimed otherwise. I've requested that users making specific claims about our actual naming conventions (as opposed to their opinions of how our naming conventions should be) cite pages that corroborate their assertions.

You seem to think that I advocate blind adherence to the rules, and nothing could be further from the truth. (If you care to, feel free to read my comments at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules and its archives.) I would never argue that we must do something simply because a rule says so, but it's important to understand that most of our rules are themselves the products of consensus. They have good reasons for existing, and I happen to support our consensus-derived policy of naming articles "to enable [them] to be found by interested readers, and nothing more." You're absolutely entitled to disagree, of course.

I don't mean to be harsh, but your signature is plastered all over these talk pages, yet, you have not contributed constructively to any of these discussions.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I've done my best to explain our naming conventions and the logic behind them.

Editors (not me) have made great intelligent points and you respond by filibustering about guidelines and policies.

No. I've attempted to explain our rules (and the logic behind them) to users who've made incorrect assumptions/claims about them. I've plainly stated that while I disagree, it's entirely reasonable to argue that they should be changed (though this isn't the best forum for that).

I think that "importance" should be a factor in the naming/disambiguation decisions. You disagree, and think that "importance" should not play a role. That's fine.

Indeed, it is. But your earlier statement (the one serving as this section's title) wasn't that "importance" should be a naming criterion; it was that it "IS a naming criterion." Do you now wish to retract this claim? Please understand that this has no bearing on which situation is better; it's simply a matter of you portraying your opinion of how we should do something as a fact regarding how we actually do it. —David Levy 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out again what seems like an important misconception. The idea of reaching a consensus, which is what Wikipedia is all about, does not mean that we sit and debate what a certain policy and guideline mean and who is best applying the guidelines and obscure essays that have cool shortcut abbreviations. Rather, we debate what the best option is for a given scenario using our own common sense and intelligence. In this situation, I'm not pointing to any guideline, policy, or even essay, for my opinion that "importance" should matter. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But you don't merely claim that "importance" should matter; you claim that it's "a naming criterion." —David Levy 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It matters, therefore it should be a naming criterion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your current position that it should be a naming criterion is an entirely reasonable statement of opinion. But that isn't what you wrote before; you claimed that it already was one. —David Levy 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion, and its also shared by other editors on these pages. Others disagree, and have their opinion as to why the state should the main page. So this is what we do, we argue back and forth and see if we can reach some sort of consensus. And this precisely is the beauty of Wikipedia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No argument there (though I'll note that few people advocate assigning the Georgia title to the U.S. state). —David Levy 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But semantics and issue-framing aside, there's a far greater misconception that must be corrected. There seems to be an attempt to knock down two of the five pillars this great encyclopedia is based on. This encyclopedia is based on two fundamental ideas. Firstly, editors discuss, debate, and attempt to reach a consensus on how to best build the encyclopedia (See Wikipedia:Consensus). Secondly, there are no rules that are drawn in the sand that cannot be overcome by common sense (see Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:Use common sense. Therefore, what's going on here, the policing and suppressing of healthy debate between editors because of some guideline, is anathmic to what Wikipeia is all about. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Debate is fine, and I disagree with attempts to suppress it. I only object to the comments from those who don't bother to read (let alone understand) the existing discussions before jumping in with their assumptions (such as the theory that arrogant Americans are overriding policy to assign precedence to their state). —David Levy 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thus turning to the underlying issue. After the Paris Hilton sex tape became public more people searching for "Paris" in Wikipedia were interested in Paris Hilton than the city of Paris. Does that mean that at that time we were supposed to move Paris Hilton to Paris and move Paris the city to "Paris (city)". Of course not. But if we were to follow those doctrinal rules promulgated by some here, we would be forced, by Wikipedia policy, to make that page move. But thankfully it is clear to most of us (I hope) that Wikipedia is not an American-Idol-like pagehit contest. We are running an encyclopedia here and we therefore we must think long-term both forward and backwards. Concerning Georgia: Of course Paris Hilton cannot be compared to Georgia, but the idea of looking at things in the long term and looking at the grand scheme of things is relevant to the Paris Hilton analogy. When comparing a country that has been around for thousands of years to a state that has only been around for hundreds of years up to the minute page-hits should not be a factor. Georgia is a sovereign country and was notable for thousands of years before the state was even in existence. Just because the sands of time and the geopolitics of the USSR put the country a little behind Western standards for a few hundred of years doesn't mean that it turned second-fiddle to a non-sovereign state. A reasonable person can obviously disagree, and hold the opposite or hold that the statue quo is the ideal. And it looks like the consensus is to stay with the status quo. But this is Wikipedia is all about. We engage in healthy debate and we take surveys. There is no such thing as closing up debates and brow-beating participants because of a non-etched in stone guideline. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the topic of Paris Hilton ever approached the level of interest held by the French city. But even it it did, it's obvious that such a surge was temporary. There is no dispute that the latter is the primary meaning (despite the existence of Paris, Texas and more than a dozen other U.S. towns called "Paris"). —David Levy 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

and herein lies your achilles heel! You agree that a temporary surge would not be enough to supplant the holder of page name. So what do you call temporary? Two weeks? Two months? Two hundred years? Lest you say that my last option was said in jest, I assure you it was not. Rather, it is precisely the correct approach that should be taken when dealing with such an issue. A non-sovereign entity that is caught up in the great expansion of America for the last few hundred years should not be on equal ground with a geographic entity (now a sovereign nation) with a rich culture and a history that goes back thousands of years. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Are you seriously suggesting that something predating Wikipedia, the internet, electronics, and everyone alive today is a "temporary surge"? —David Levy 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am. It might require some editors to forget about guidelines and polices for a few split seconds and look at things from a bigger perspective, but that is what I am suggesting. Looking at world history, where million-year ice ages are considered off-hand eras, some non-sovereign entity is only a little blip-surge when it's a cog in the wheel of a two hundred year-old nation. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We write our encyclopedia for the benefit of the living and future people who read it. For them, neither the country nor the U.S. state predominates in common use to the extent that it should be deemed the primary meaning. If that changes (or if we someday are able to send the encyclopedia hundreds of years into the past), that will be a different story. —David Levy 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My assertion aside, I would like to know what you consider a "surge". Is is seconds, days, weeks, or months. I maintain that it can be considered hundreds of years. You disagree. But what is your "surge" standard? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My reference to a temporary surge pertained to no specific duration; I was referring to an instance in which an event causes an article's readership to suddenly increase in a manner that can reasonably be anticipated to subside in the near future. Our encyclopedia didn't exist hundreds of years ago, and I see no evidence that the U.S. state's prominence is due to diminish at any foreseeable point (though you're welcome to present such evidence). —David Levy 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to know where in the guideline and policy there is some sort of exception for surges. I cant find any in the naming convention policy policy or in the disambiguation page guidelines. Are you by any chance using the forbidden common-sense to make an exception? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop attacking that straw man. I've never claimed that we shouldn't apply common sense or that we should abide by the letter of a rule instead of its spirit, and I certainly don't believe either. —David Levy 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And again, "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more." It has no direct connection to a subject's importance. The current setup does not imply that the country and U.S. state are "on equal ground"; it merely reflects the fact that both articles are extremely likely search targets. —David Levy 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And again, there's no disagreement about what the best title is for each county. There is only a disagreemnt who, if anyone, should get that best title. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How does that relate to the message to which you responded? —David Levy 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Among this site's visitors, there is no such primary meaning of the term "Georgia." That the country is sovereign and has much a longer history is no more relevant than the U.S. state's greater geographic size, higher population and far larger economy. None of that has any bearing on how many people seek a particular article (in the absence of extraordinary circumstances) and what we can do to assist them in their navigation.

In no respect has the country been treated as a "second-fiddle" to the U.S. state. Had we assigned the Georgia title to the latter (which I would strongly oppose), that would be such a situation. But we haven't. This often serves as an attack page against Americans (not by you) simply because the country wasn't automatically given titular preference.

As stated above, I don't seek to "[close] up debates and [brow-beat] participants." I'm just tired of seeing my nation's residents assailed by people who make assumptions without even trying to consider differing viewpoints. (Again, I'm not referring to you.) —David Levy 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding links

I think that this disambiguation page should also refer to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which is a British overseas territory in the southern Atlantic Ocean, and also to the Strait of Georgia, which is is a strait between Vancouver Island and the mainland Pacific coast of Canada's British Columbia Province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.204.16.1 (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and so added. — Satori Son 14:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move - 15 March 2008

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus for move. Parsecboy (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most of our editors don't know about the existence of.. say the Republic of Ezo (among trillions of other things) either, does that mean we should delete the article? We don't pander to local ignorance. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Something like that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support: Come on, how hasn't it changed yet? The current way is just silly, a national sub-division is clearly lesser than an actual nation. For instance look to Norway (disambiguation), lots of places there called Norway but the country is clearly dominant. --Him and a dog 10:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Unimaginably Super-Strong Support I find this ongoing charade preposterous. A sovereign nation obviously outranks a state of the United States in this regard. __meco (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that switching from "Support" to "Unimaginably Super-Strong Support" adds weight to your argument? How about addressing the fact that Wikipedia doesn't base its article titles on such a ranking system? —David Levy 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Irony, my friend. __meco (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. —David Levy 11:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the emphasis is utterly pointless. The reason I made the change was merely to make that point, hence I made an exaggeration ad ridiculum. My assumption was that in making so I would not hamper the process of making an encyclopedia, merely lighten the mood by the manner in which I made my point. __meco (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I still would appreciate an explanation of why you believe that "a sovereign nation obviously outranks a state of the United States" when it comes to Wikipedia's titles. —David Levy 14:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are, I agree, more considerations that go into that equation, but in a world which is organized like ours is, people's perceptions follow suit with this organizing principle, and for most people that will mean that Georgia the nation gets awarded the privilege of carrying the undisambiguated Georgia article name. __meco (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't jibe with Wikipedia's consensus-derived naming conventions (which dictate that "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more"). —David Levy 14:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support: That there is even a discussion is absolutely ridiculous. Alex van Poppelen (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I'm embarrassed by my fellow Americans who put a State with a 100-year history on equal grounds to a country with a 1000-year history. This is what WP:BIAS was intended for. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A fair number of Americans would be embarrassed to see one of their own claim that Georgia was admitted to the Union in 1908. Those who live in glass houses... Strad (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

they would also be embarrassed when they realize that the numbers weren't intended to be precise. Indeed, once you take up my year counting you might want to check if the number I gave for the country was also wrong. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Disambiguation is a pragmatic solution, that there is a dicussion again and again is absolutely ridiculous as are the ad-hominem attacks that equate oppose to a redirect with American chauvinism. And no, I am not American, as if it matter. Also have a look at the French Wikipedia, which also disambiguates Géorgie. Голубое сало (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as per everyone else who has pointed out that Georgia the country and Georgia the state are comparably notable. Strad (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support a 4000 year old nation is infinitely more notable than a barely a few century-old American state, despite the egocentric and xenophobic view of local editors. And per increased media attention at the moment it should be moved to the main article asap. PS: The article traffic data supports the nation of Georgia as the more visited page. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:39/08:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC) PS2: If this article were moved, navigation would prove easier. One half of the viewers would be on the right page already, and the other half would be only a click away (same as the current arrangement). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[reply to new addition]

If there were only two "Georgia" articles, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. (This is precisely the argument that I use against two-article-disambiguation pages.) But there are numerous secondary topics (in addition to the country and the U.S. state) that readers might seek. —David Levy 07:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacking other editors. If you disagree with other editors respond to their arguments, and do not accuse them of being egocentric and xenophobic. Голубое сало (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Was definitely not intended that way, but point well taken, I agree (and have always agreed) that PAs are counter-productive. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support Wikipedia is supposed to have a global POV. The national level is the most established level in the world order. There aren't many geographical entities called Georgia. To send editors who type "Georgia" to this disambiguation page is very US-centric. - SSJ ☎ 01:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just keep casting votes based on a rationale that doesn't reflect policy. Don't bother to read any of the existing discussions. Just assume that all of this is because Americans are arrogant. —David Levy 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of this straw-poll if policy dictates that there be a dab page? There's no policy here that requires a dab page analysis to based on page hits. To begin with, WP:DAB is a guideline, not a policy. More importantly, the guideline itself states that it should be treated with common sense and should make way for the occasional exception. If there was one place to use common sense it would be in this situation. Let's stop being so close minded with our population counting, GDP counting, and pagehits counting. Let's think in the grand scheme of things and answer these questions: What is an encyclopedia all about? Is it a popularity contest? In the grand scheme of world history who has played a greater role, the Country or the State? In the future, who will most likely play a greater role, the Country or the State?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no policy here that requires a dab page analysis to based on page hits.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (a policy) explains that "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more."

Also, that something "is a guideline, not a policy" (as you described Wikipedia:Disambiguation) generally isn't a strong argument at Wikipedia.

Let's think in the grand scheme of things and answer these questions: What is an encyclopedia all about? Is it a popularity contest? In the grand scheme of world history who has played a greater role, the Country or the State? In the future, who will most likely play a greater role, the Country or the State?

See, this is where we run into problems, as the answers to those questions are subjective. (It could reasonably be argued that an entity with a higher population and far larger economy is "more important.") This is one of the reasons why we rely on objective criteria. —David Levy 13:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

replied below. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose, both entities are comparable in importance, depending on which criterion is choosen (history, GDP, population size, influence on culture etc.). Hence disambiguation seems to be the best solution. Novidmarana (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong Oppose - Since neither the state or the country can claim supermajority meaning of the un-disambiguated term --mav (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support UN-recognized countries must have priority above subnational entities - even large American ones. Bagande (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on what policy/guideline? —David Levy 20:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on his opinion, presumably - that's a what a consensus is, as far as I know. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The above opinion is an argument in favor of modifying our naming conventions (under which such the distinction has no direct relevance). —David Levy 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, are we not allowed to set precedent with a consensus? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 14:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We are, but that isn't what I see. I see arguments based on mistaken assumptions regarding how we title our articles (as well as assumptions regarding the motive of "arrogant" Americans) and arguments that indicate disagreement with our naming conventions that doesn't appear to uniquely apply to these articles. —David Levy 15:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but people tend to take a lax approach to discussions on Wikipedia. If you wish to initiate a 'hard-line' survey, I guess that would be possible too, but I think that even though their arguments may be flawed, this survey will ultimately represent consensus of concerned editors. I guess I can't really debate with you on this particular problem with the survey because I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of the voting process on Wikipedia, and presumably, you, as an administrator, are, so I've just given my thoughts, and I'll take your word for it if I am wrong. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion/polling on Wikipedia is never about simply counting the votes; to hold weight, opinions must be backed by logical rationales. Some users have posted reasonable arguments as to why our naming conventions have generated an undesirable outcome, while others have incorrectly assumed that we usually base our titles on the subjects' importance (and have failed to do so in this instance because of American bias). The latter does not contribute to consensus (because it relies on a false premise), while the former is a far stronger rationale for changing our naming conventions than it is for making an exception (because there doesn't appear to be any unique circumstance in this case). —David Levy 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but I think a debate like this needs to be conducted as a special case. If you have an overwhelming majority that support moving the nation because of "US chauvinism", well, it'd be inappropriate for an admin to reject the consensus. A debate on naming conventions should be conducted on the relevant talk, whereas a debate on this page should be conducted here. If you press the editors (as you are doing, commendable if a little confronting/disturbing) they usually tend to elaborate and provide other reasons. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, consensus is not merely a vote count. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus. —David Levy 17:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, again, I know. But policies only go so far, sometimes (most of the time, actually) the article and its situation/background needs to be recognised before making decisions about it. Also I think what we have here is hardly a simple tally, we have dozens of kb of discussion. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's very important to recognize the issue's background. That's why opinions formulated by individuals lacking even a basic understanding of this setup's background (and incorrectly assuming that it's something entirely different) carry little weight. —David Levy 08:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Touché, but that judgement cannot be left to you alone, personally I don't think those users have missed the mark there. Their argument, though not perfect, is voiced independently by a number of users and need be given weight. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm heavily involved in the debate, so no assessment of mine can be regarded as any sort of formal judgement. Nonetheless, it's very clear that many respondents are basing their opinions on entirely incorrect assumptions that they wouldn't possess if they had read the discussions.

2. What do you mean when you say that you "don't think those users have missed the mark there"? Are you suggesting that we do ordinarily base our titles on the subjects' importance and we have failed to do so because of American arrogance? And are you saying that a faulty argument becomes viable when "voiced independently by a number of users"? —David Levy 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about American arrogance, I'm saying these users' thoughts on the matter should not be dismissed because of a single user's opposition, no matter how many excellent points you have in response to their deeply flawed arguments. Obviously I'm not equating their arguments with already "viable" ones, I'm just saying their opinions are not null and void as it seems to me you insist. Sorry if I'm not sounding clear here. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing anyone's thoughts; I'm pointing out that many respondents' arguments are based upon incorrect assumptions. If I wanted to dismiss these thoughts, I would ignore them instead of explaining to people that they've misunderstood the situation and encouraging them to read the relevant discussions.

As noted above, I have absolutely no authority to render any sort of formal decision on this matter, so my responses should be viewed as my personal assessments (and nothing more). —David Levy 09:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree. It seemed to me you were dismissing some users views' and pressuring them into a more 'valid' line of argument (both arguments have merit, both have flaws, and I doubt you would find an argument 'valid' until it agreed with you - I sure wouldn't). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and Georgia is a UN country which has an independent government and therefore it is part of the international system, while the US state of Georgia, as part of a federal state, is not in the UN and therefore not visible to the world system. Independent states with fully independent governments and armies deserve to have an article with their UN-recognised name, while political entities that are part of federal governments should have a name reflecting their participation in the federal entity: Georgia (US state). Additionally, whenever I hear the name "Georgia" I always immediatelly think about the independent state of Georgia in the Caucasus, and very rarely or only if talking about US matters I think about the US state of Georgia. This does not mean, of course, that the US state of Georgia is not a great place. It is simply about what is a country and what is not a country and what is visible in a world map and what is not. Many world maps do not show US states or other subfederal subdivisions in other states with political subdivisions (eg in Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Germany, UK, Australia, Canada, ...), therefore in these world maps the only Georgia one can find is the country in the Caucasus. Especially now, thanks to the 2008 Georgia-Russia War, Georgia has become much more visible and recognisable in the world. It is simply inconceivable for an independent state and UN member not to take precedence over subfederal entities that are part of a federal state and therefore not members of UN or otherwise visible in the international system. NerdyNSK (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • For a similar matter see Luxembourg, which is an independent state and has an article with its name, while the non-independent subnational political entitiy Luxembourg (Belgium) and the US cities Luxemburg, Iowa, Luxemburg, Wisconsin, and Luxemburg Township, Stearns County, Minnesota have articles reflecting their participation in encompassing political superstructures. Independent national political entities deserve to take precedence over non-independent subnational political entities. NerdyNSK (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Now see Macedonia, and then see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (in which it's explained that "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more").
      Did it occur to you that the nation of Luxembourg is a far more likely search target among users of this site than the Belgian province is? And come on, very few Americans (let alone our readers in general) have heard of those U.S. entities, and their names aren't even spelled "Luxembourg." —David Levy 14:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Macedonia is a different matter because of the very intense naming dispute between Republic of Macedonia and Greece. There have been very little of disputes between the country and state of Georgia. Greverod (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
        • How is that relevant? The assertion was that we automatically assign the non-disambiguated title to the country. —David Levy 13:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - the country is not the clear, unambiguous primary meaning of "Georgia", as evidenced by the article traffic statistics, so a disambiguation page is certainly the best solution. Cheers, Rai•me 01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? —David Levy 17:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. (Incidentally, that makes it support 15-10 oppose now.) 87.112.92.116 (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by simply counting votes (let alone votes accompanied by no rationale). Please see Wikipedia:Consensus. —David Levy 17:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as per all the reasons previously given in this and earlier surveys and discussions. Nothing new has be introduced to the discussion to warrant changing the status quo. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. Honestly, if we move it, then we have to deal with people wanting to move it back. The best course of action, leave it as it is and count any more of these discussions as spam.--Jakezing (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Current way is more pragmatic. The U.S. State of Georgia is bigger, both territorial and population wise, than the nation. It also has a lot more English speakers. --Tocino 00:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support How is this even a question? Not having a UN member nation under their name is going a little too far Hobartimus (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this even a question? Because numerous people don't understand or don't care about our naming conventions. Do you? —David Levy 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When common sense gives such a clear cut answer, there is no need to rely on anything else, just use common sense. Also as a side note reacting to every support vote in a confrontational way will have an adverse effect on the position you advocate and will only strengthen the Support side. Hobartimus (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Our naming conventions dictate that "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more." How does common sense tell us something to the contrary?

User after user has incorrectly assumed that our articles' titles somehow reflect the subjects' importance (as perceived by Wikipedia editors). This is incorrect.

2. This is a discussion, not a majority vote. Addressing users' comments and asking them to elaborate is entirely appropriate (and not "confrontational").

Could you please answer my question? (Do you understand our naming conventions?) And have you read the discussions on this page? —David Levy 13:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unparalleled Strength in Support. The state should be entitled Georgia, United States, and when we type in Georgia it should go to the country. The current Georgia page should be retitled Georgia (disambiguation). The point is, which none of the opponents mention is that you can locate the state within a larger geographic region. With a country you cannot, and so it should take primacy. It's mostly going to be Americans objecting to the move, and no hard feelings on the Yanks, but a country is more important than a bit of one, even - dare I say it - a bit of America. Georgia proper is more important and more notable than Georgia, US. Also, to be frank, the country was there first. Wikidea 15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

1.Georgia, United States is not a MoS-compliant title, which is why we use Georgia (U.S. state).

2. Importance is not a naming criterion at Wikipedia (as you would know if you'd bothered to read this page's discussions). Nor, for that matter, is age. (If it were, several of these people would take precedence over your prime minister.

Hardly, all those people put together are nowhere near the 'importance' of PM Brown. Frankly I'm surprised you would sink that low, though if you want to hear it, I have a number of stereotypes, facts and anecdotes about the US that would probably get on your nerves fast (and that's faah-st, not faeh-st, in case you're wondering). :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My point was that we don't assign titles based on who/what "was there first." Obviously, there are are many instances (such as the case of Gordon Brown) in which younger/newer entities are far more prominent than older entities with the same name. (I'm not suggesting that Georgia, USA is more prominent than the country, of course.) —David Levy 08:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur, though it should be noted age is regularly proportional to notability. This is one of those times, for people from outside the US are even less familiar with the American states than you may think. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I expect people from outside the U.S. to have practically no familiarity with its states. —David Levy 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Alas, many here in Australia do. Then again the vast majority of our prime-time is American television, so I assume that is the exception, not the rule. Most young people here could tell you the population of California, but would be completely baffled at what the neighbours of the Northern Territory are. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that Georgia, United States is not a MoS-compliant title? WP:PLACES says both "Georgia, United States" and "Georgia (U.S. state)" are acceptable.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To what text are you referring? —David Levy 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Georgia, United States is not a MoS-compliant title, which is why we use Georgia (U.S. state).".--Huaiwei (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm asking you what text at WP:PLACES you're referring to. —David Levy 05:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. For the reasons stated above, also the much greater prominence of Georgia (the country) following recent events. --rossb (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So if Wikipedia had existed in 1996 (when Georgia, USA hosted the Summer Olympics), you'd have supported turning over the Georgia title to the U.S. state's article, right? —David Levy 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Good god, why is everyone equating shiny pieces of medal to an invasion of a sovereign state, you should hear the news here in Australia, it's basically 59 minutes of Olympics and a mention of the Georgian... olympic team. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly am not equating the two. I'm pointing out that there was a period in which events taking place in the U.S. state led to far greater international news coverage than the country received at that time. —David Levy 08:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't contesting your point (though I can honestly say I don't remember those Olympics at all :) ), I merely felt to need to whinge about that. My apologies if I made myself misunderstood. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Country names should have precedence over state names.--Dojarca (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to propose that this be adopted as a naming criterion. —David Levy 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest Possible Support: A country is of obvious more relevance and importance that a country subdivision.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to propose that importance be adopted as a naming criterion. —David Levy 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Not only is Georgia the US state more likely to be a target for the millions of US users, but the native name of the country of Georgia isn't even Georgia. If you want to move the article to "Sakartvelo" then by all means go ahead. Betterusername (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Statistics show that the article about country is more frequently browsed than the article about US state (even before the current Ossetian war)--Dojarca (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not by a margin that makes it the primary usage. —David Levy 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose No primary usage has been demonstrated. There is no evidence to show that people typing "Georgia" are overwhelmingly looking for the country, whether it be from page views or incoming links. There is no guideline or policy that country names occupy a page with no additional qualifier (such as the guideline for articles about years). The existence of a disambiguation page at "Georgia" is not a judgement of the importance or notability of any subject, only an indication of no primary usage. Khatru2 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Try telling that to Georgians. A lack of a policy is not a reason to refuse to hear the voices of a number of dissatisfied users. All the current compromise has achieved is to make everyone unhappy. The naming conventions for geographic areas are not a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia - WP:IAR is. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to understand how you interpret WP:IAR in this situation. How are our naming conventions preventing you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia so as to be worthy of being ignored? If anything, I see the disambiguation page as a pragmatic solution in the spirit of WP:IAR, specifically when it comes to incoming links. With the current setup, wikilinks to "Georgia" that refer to the U.S. state can be identified and changed to the proper target. If the country were located at "Georgia", these links would remain unidentified, and several readers would be directed to a completely wrong page. (For an illustration of how many links this would be, here is an example from a sample I took a while back.) Why risk the confusion of many readers for the sole purpose of holding to a rule that countries always occupy a page without an additional qualifier? Khatru2 (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I raised IAR in response to David's repeated insistence on following the naming conventions. The situation has changed, the amazingly high number of move requests for this page would appear to suggest dissatisfaction with the current arrangement. I don't think 'more work' is a valid argument at a move discussion, those errors could just as easily be identified and corrected by a diligent user. I don't think it would be a strech to say at least a few of the links to Montana really intend to go to Montana (Bulgarian province), and a number of similar situations can likely be located with the correct resources. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the Montana example, about half of the incoming links to "Georgia" are for the U.S. state, so the scope of the problem is much greater. This is not an issue of diligence. Look at the incoming links to New York or Washington, for example. These are both articles about U.S. states, but the names also refer to well-known U.S. cities. There is no way to distinguish the links have been identified to be correct from the links pointing to the wrong article. Unless we continue to ensure that no incoming links point to "Georgia", including those for the country, this problem would exist. Khatru2 (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You have yourself provided links to articles where the situation you fear already exists, in fact I'd expect the majority of links to New York to be misdirected. I repeat, fear of having to solve an issue (which is already familiar to editors on the Wikipedia from other articles) should not be a reason for opposing a valid move request. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I would support New York and Washington being disambiguation pages as well. I believe that the desire to avoid confusion and navigational problems for our readers in a clear case of no primary usage is a valid reason to oppose the move. It is my opinion that no rationale in favor of the move is more compelling than these serious navigational concerns. How does the benefit of moving the page outweigh the drawbacks I have illustrated? Khatru2 (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a little - forgive me - cowardly. You propose a change of policy (and a pretty severe one at that) and instead of suggesting it head on, you come to a relatively low traffic consensus and try to push your opinions across where they would be unlikely to encounter too much opposition, so you can use them as a back-up in further debates. Sorry if I have offended you accidentally but that's what your argument sounds like to me. You have no interest in the well-being of the article, you have interest in what you would find convenient. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. Where have I proposed any change in policy whatsoever? I am trying to show that there are tangible issues that arise when we disregard our naming conventions (even if agreed to through consensus) and put an article that is not a primary usage at a title without a qualifier. I am a little disheartened by your assessment of my motives. Khatru2 (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, in retrospect that was a little too harsh. As far as I am aware of, there is no policy or precedent for a (valid) vote because of fear of having to do extra work. Would you please clarify, are you proposing this as a new clause for the naming conventions, or is there a policy/precedent I missed? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The guideline I referenced in my original comment is WP:PRIMARYUSAGE which is part of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I see no measure by which the country of Georgia is "much more used than any other" meaning. I use the incoming links issue to refute the perception that it is harmless to make an exception from this guideline in this (or any) case. To use the examples we have discussed, I believe "Montana" has a primary usage (the U.S. state), while "Washington", "New York", and "Georgia" do not. I believe that the current setups at "Washington" and "New York" do not conform to this guideline, so I would support them becoming disambiguation pages. However, the current setups at "Montana" and "Georgia" do conform, so I oppose this requested move. I do not support changing any policy or guideline for the purpose of convenience or avoiding work. Khatru2 (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't believe that is, or should be, the correct way to go about this. A vote should be cast, or an opinion voiced, only in the interests of the article itself, not in the interest of a policy opposition to which has been repeatedly voiced here - the very reason we've been debating this for years, and if we don't correct the error of having the disambig here, will be debating this for years to come. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I believe that the current setup is in the interests of the relevant articles, and our naming conventions exist with good reason; there is consensus that they result in the best experience for our readers. In this instance, users wish to defy our naming conventions either because they misunderstand them or because they dislike this particular outcome (but can cite no distinction other than "countries are more important than segments thereof," which relies on the false premise that importance is a Wikipedia naming criterion). The rationale for assigning the "Georgia" title to the country relates more to an arbitrary perception of fairness than it does to a concern for our readers' ability to navigate the encyclopedia (the only purpose that our titles serve).

2. What makes you think that a move would end the debate? —David Levy 00:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Because this debate is just. So. Painfully. Idiotic.. Most of the oppose votes here are from people afraid of changing status quo for fear of problems later on (including you, as far as I can tell), while most of the support votes are people that think there is a problem now. Would you honestly vote, if this article had always been for the nation, to move it away in favour of a disambig page? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1. No, that isn't my rationale, nor is it the prevailing reason for opposition. Have you confused me with Khatru2?

2. I certainly hope that you aren't implying that the opposition is idiotic.

3. Yes, I would. —David Levy 01:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eep, I think I need a little break, I'm descending into subjectivity. (1) I haven't confused you, but I see that as basically the only valid reason anyone's given for opposition yet. (2) (frowny face) You know as well as I that I wouldn't say nor imply that. (3) I don't think you would. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1. What about the simple fact that our titles' sole purpose is to lead readers to their desired articles (not to reflect/declare the subjects' importance) and the proposed move would make it harder for many users to reach their desired articles?

2. It certainly would be uncharacteristic of you, but I'm struggling to find another meaning. (Please clarify the original comment.)

3. You're mistaken. —David Levy 01:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1) It would not make it harder to reach their desired article, if anything, this makes it more difficult. If the nation were moved here, 50% of the visitors would be on the right page straight away, and the other half would be one click away, same as the current arrangement. 2) I find this debate would sit well in the list of the lamest edit wars, I assume this comes down to my standard of common sense (as discussed below). 3) I don't believe you, but let's leave that one there. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1. If there were only two "Georgia" articles, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. (This is precisely the argument that I use against two-article-disambiguation pages.) But there are numerous secondary topics (in addition to the country and the U.S. state) that readers might seek.

2. No, this isn't an edit war at all. As "idiotic" as you might view the debate, it's been argued by both sides in good faith (without the relevant articles being moved back and forth).

And yes, the bottom line is that support for the proposed move stems from many editors' personal feeling that it just seems wrong to not assign the non-disambiguated title to the country. This is an understandable response, but it has no basis in policy or in the goals behind said policy.

3. I realize that you don't seek to hurl insults, but you're basically accusing me of lying. —David Levy 07:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1) The other articles are basically inconsequential compared to the nation and state. 2) I had misused the term edit war accidentally. I know what it means but I suppose I must have just written it mechanically, I really need more sleep... :) 3) Well, if that were so, I'd be accusing you of lying to yourself rather than me. Take my word for it, that was not my goal. My apologies if I have made myself misunderstood. I really need more sleep. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The country and U.S. state certainly are the two most common meanings, but the other subjects collectively possess a fair amount of significance. Given the fact that the country's article receives only slightly more traffic than the U.S. state's article does (under ordinary circumstances), the current navigational structure is logical. In the absence of a single primary usage, the non-disambiguated title serves as a disambiguation page unless it would contain only two links (in which case even flipping a coin is a better solution).

2/3. Okay, I hope that you get your needed sleep.  :-) —David Levy 11:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe they posses any significance, and if they do, it is utterly inconsequential compared to the nation and state of Georgia. The readers (reader?) looking for those topics are two clicks away, same as with most other links to disambig pages when there is primary topic. (And sorry my nap streched over a week.) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree, though please note that no one is asserting that any of those other topics is nearly as prominent as the country or U.S. state. —David Levy 12:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll find no stronger supporter of WP:IAR than I am. But bowing to uninformed, knee-jerk opinions doesn't improve or maintain Wikipedia. Much of the support for the move is on the part of people who misunderstand our conventions (and assume that we're defying them for the benefit of arrogant Americans) because they haven't bothered to read the relevant discussions. —David Levy 08:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Strong Support - In the light of recent events and interest in the country of Georgia I cannot believe this issue has not been settled. If we were talking about a sovereign independent country and a sub-national unit of any other country but the USA, would we even be having this debate? This lack of parity with other UN members states undermines the credibility of the country - opposers, you're doing the Russian's work. Nick Fraser (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If we were talking about a sovereign independent country and a sub-national unit of any other country but the USA, would we even be having this debate?

No, because if it were any country other than the USA, the above respondents wouldn't assume that the situation stemmed from the arrogance of said nation's residents (leading them to not bother reading previous discussions or trying to understand our naming conventions).

This lack of parity with other UN members states undermines the credibility of the country

...except, of course, for the fact that our articles' titles have absolutely nothing to do with that.

- opposers, you're doing the Russian's work.

What an incredible statement. I don't even know how to respond to that. —David Levy 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Face it - one would be hard-pressed to not concur that such debates would not likely occur with any country but the USA. I think the overwhelming number of people behind arguing this rationale ("a country is more significant then a national subdivision") should be heard, despite your objections, David. The rules are not the be all end all, every article has its own circumstances and background - WP:IAR is after all a fundamental tenet of the Wikipedia. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Indeed, if this were a country other than the USA, we wouldn't be having this debate (because we wouldn't have all of these people assuming that the naming setup stemmed from arrogance).

2. I hear those people, and then I explain to them that importance isn't a naming criterion. Most of them seem to be under the incorrect impression that it is (and that Americans have taken it upon themselves to break the rules). If they would simply read the page's discussions (instead of showing up, casting a ballot and leaving), they would know better. —David Levy 08:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, What's in a name? I think you underestimate the power of Wikipedia, David. The website is obviously a top tier global information resource and the decisions and actions that are taken on it have real 'soft power' reach and influence in the physical world. Deny a people and their country their name at the 'top table' (i.e. a main country page enjoyed by almost every other sovereign UN member state) - and you think that has little effect? What does a Georgian feel when he sees the disambiguation page? What do those they are in conflict with feel? Don't you think that Wikipedia is just another battle ground in the information war that the powers are playing against each other? You say "our articles' titles have absolutely nothing to do with that" (undermining the credibility of Georgia). Given the interest that the security services of many nations taken in Wikipedia I think that's a rather naive position to take.

I know you will hold on to your argument about rules and naming conventions and vote counting not being important, but surely parity with other nations is the most important concept here and the truly equitable way forward - I think that is what the international community of Wikipedians really wants. Surely Wikipedia policy has to reflect the will and feeling of the global community of users and if it is out of line with that (as seems to be the case here) must change accordingly? Nick Fraser (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant that the assignment of our titles has absolutely nothing to do with our perceived importance of the subjects. Quoth Wikipedia:Naming conventions, "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more."

Yes, policy can change to reflect the will of the community. Feel free to propose that we modify our naming conventions. —David Levy 08:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support - The visitor stats clearly show Georgia (country) to be the more popular destination, and its present current affairs are merely increasing those stats. Of course it should be the primary destination for this name on Wikipedia. Incidentally, despite what certain people do or do not think about whether the age, sovereignty, UN-status, etc, of a nation should be an issue in conventions on article naming, it is VERY clear to me from the foregoing that the community believes this should be an issue. Nations should take priority over subnational entities (not surprising, given that it is simply common sense). So if someone would like to start a poll on that subject in the appropriate place, then I shall be pleased to sign up with my support there also. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Er... ditto. Hear hear! I don't think such a guideline has ever been previously required, thus explaining its absence, but perhaps a line in the geographic nomenclature conventions could do the trick. I don't even think a vote would be required, it is common sense. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it common sense? If our titles were indicative of importance (as many people erroneously believe), I could see how not assigning the qualifier-free title to the country might come across as a slight. But given the fact that "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more," I don't understand this rationale (though I fully understand the desire to alter our naming conventions). —David Levy 11:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because it is a viewpoint voiced independently by a large number of people. A country should take precedence over a national subunit. The Sydney suburb of Maroubra isn't at Maroubra, but at Maroubra, New South Wales. The Australian WikiProject editors have decided to place it there, despite the fact it would be better found at Maroubra, and despite the fact there is no competitor for notability. The policy (WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, I believe) to which you keep referring is not a universal catch-all, individial articles need to be considered case-by-case, and it has been shown a number of editors are unsatisfied with the current situation. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Many people have voiced an opposing viewpoint as well (and the current setup attracts opponents of the status quo). How does that make either opinion "common sense"?

2. Again (quoting the naming conventions policy), "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more." Whether the country is more important than the U.S. state doesn't matter, because we simply don't base our titles on subjects' importance. This is a fundamental principle, and the perception that this particular outcome is unfair to the county doesn't counter the logic behind the former.

3. The Maroubra, New South Wales example is not remotely comparable. As you noted, there is no disambiguation issue, so that's purely a matter of style. If there were one or more other notable subjects called Maroubra, you might have to relinquish that redirect to a different article or a disambiguation page. —David Levy 01:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't inteded for comparison with this debate, but merely an example of an article which is intentionally not placed at the most common and easily found name. As for 1 and 2, I won't argue those points. I cannot provide you with a definition of common sense, and I guess not everyone's common sense is comparable (I used to be utterly convinced Morgan Freeman was a female swimmer for some inexplicable reason). You'll just have to take my word that it is common sense to me (and no, that is not my current line of argument). As for 2, I guess that is very nature of this debate. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed move. Our role here is not to decide which subject is more important (or has the largest land mass or population, has received recent news coverage, has a longer history, etc.). Our role is to make it easy for Wikipedia readers all over the world to quickly find the specific subject they are looking for, a goal which the current naming achieves. — Satori Son 14:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet, it has been shown a number of editors are strongly dissatisfied with the current, in my opinion idiotic, situation. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And many editors are quite content with the situation (and I hope not all of us are "idiotic"). So instead of making this a popularity contest, let's follow official policy on the matter. — Satori Son 13:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoo, I love your argument. I was unaware the word 'situation' had taken on another meaning. Shouldn't have I gotten a memo? Next time send a memo. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be coy. There is no substantive difference between "You're an idiot" and "The situation you have voiced support for is idiotic." I'm hardly asking for an apology, but if you're going to make ad hominem comments, at least have the guts to skip the twisted semantics and own up to it. — Satori Son 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm enjoying not being coy - it provides relief from the dreariness of this idiotic debate. Also, I'm afraid you have missed the mark there, I wouldn't stoop to ad hominem attacks if wild cougars were gnawing on my ankles (well, no promises on that one) - there is a world of difference between 'You're an idiot', and 'The situation you have voiced support for is idiotic'. One of my best mates is a fundamentalist Christian deep-right-wing war fanatic. I find all of those viewpoints utterly idiotic, yet I respect the person. Is it not the source of debate, idiotic or otherwise, when parties disagree with each other? Should I be finding the idea that a US subdivision is anywhere near the notability of a sovereign state wonderful, when I don't? Or should I lie, and say that it is? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your focus is in the wrong place. User:Satori Son correctly points out that "our role is to make it easy for Wikipedia readers..." (emphasis mine). Your response shows that you are trying to satisfy editors, which is not -- or, at least, should not be -- our primary concern. As WP:NC tells us: "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." (Emphasis in original.) --Tkynerd (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And, Wikipedia readers are largely after the country, and if they are after the state, they'd be one click away, just as they are now. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, not necessarily...not to mention the fact that assigning "importance" to a topic in this way is inherently POV. A "country|Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia (disambiguation)"-type hatnote could be used, but that actually would serve to reinforce the POV, IMO. As long as the search statistics are nearly evenly balanced between the two topics, this should remain a disambiguation page. I'm not sure what you mean by "largely" here, but based on the numbers, it apparently means something less than a majority, which makes it rather hard to understand your trying to use it as support for your argument. --Tkynerd (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't assign importance to a topic, the statistics have - statistics that will only swing even more towards the nation in the forseeable future. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Placing one of multiple possible subjects under the bare name comes across as designating that as the most "important" topic of that name, whatever you would like to pretend. That's not how we make our naming decisions (or it shouldn't be, no matter what mistakes some editors would like to see us make with this page), but it tends to be perceived that way. The statistics have consistently shown that nearly as many readers are looking for the U.S. state as are looking for the country, until the recent crisis happened. Your suggestion that the resulting spike in readers looking for the country article will not only continue, but even increase, is absurd. There's no reason to believe that the statistics will not revert to their former levels for both articles when this crisis is over -- and even if they don't, we should wait until that point to make a decision about this. Using abnormal outliers to make decisions about articles titles is, frankly, stupid. --Tkynerd (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not pretending anything. The statistics, even when they do return to their usual levels, show preference for Georgia the nation. Rather than forcing everyone to go through a click to get where they're going, we could satisfy the majority and keep the minority the same distance from their target article. All this move would achieve is make it easier for slightly over a half of readers to find their target article. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The statistics show that under normal circumstances, slightly more users are looking for the country than the U.S. state; however, neither target has a majority. And even if one of them did by a slight margin, say 51% to 48% (I'm making those numbers up), that doesn't make it the primary topic. Here, for your edification, is the relevant text from WP:MOSDAB:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should be used for the title of the article on that topic. (Emphasis mine.)

A few percentage points does not amount to "much more used" or "significantly more commonly searched for and read." Sorry. --Tkynerd (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am growing weary of this "but.. but.. the grown-ups said I'm right, so sorry!" argument. I find your arrogance obnoxious. Consensus overrides the WP:MOS in all cases, and here we are, for the sixth or so time, previously only unable to establish a consensus because of people hiding behind that argument. There's a reason the MOS is a guideline, not a policy. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now this is about the lamest excuse for a rationale I've seen yet. You're blaming people who want to follow the MOS for the failure to achieve consensus to move this page?!? And you have the audacity to label that as arrogance?!? Someone please stick a fork in this interminable debate, because it's over; there hasn't been any noticeable movement towards any sort of consensus since the first time the move was proposed. older ≠ wiser 11:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It was not an excuse for a rationale (whatever that means), it was an expression of annoyance at the tone Tkynerd presented his argument in. Sorry. I am too growing weary of this protracted non-debate. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell "grown-ups" are you talking about? I find your unwillingness to even consider, much less follow, the MOS obnoxious. If consensus could be achieved for a move here, then WP:IAR would come into play. But there is no consensus for a move. --Tkynerd (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have considered the MOS, I didn't come this article with some sort of personal vendetta, I voted for what I thought was the better solution. Should I be arguing for the MOS here, when my argument relies on consensus overriding that very style guide, for the benefit of the article? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, but it's disheartening to see you continually belittling those who wish to abide by the (consensus-derived) MoS. You'd been polite in the beginning, and I don't know what led you down this path. —David Levy 11:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you forget to answer my question about what you meant by your remark about "grown-ups," or did you just not want to answer? What it sounds like -- and I realize I may be putting words in your mouth here, so please correct me if I'm wrong -- is that you don't like it when other editors invoke the MOS. As David Levy cogently points out, the MOS is itself a product of a broad consensus that covers the whole encyclopedia and sets standards that our articles should follow, unless there is a very clear reason not to do so. Here there is no such reason, particularly not from a usability standpoint, which is where our focus should be anyway. --Tkynerd (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

David, I've grown weary of this tedious 'debate'. While editors are arriving, providing varied reasons for their 'Support' votes, the group of opponents are sounding like a broken record - "but the MoS says..". I was hopping by putting some emotion in the argument I could get an actual debate started again, rather than unilateral dismissal of non-MoS-conformist votes. It did not work - what little passion I did inspire in other editors was mostly funnelled to ad hominem attacks. In retrospect I don't know why I thought that would work. Tkynerd, keep your pants on - I am not going to adress every single point your ever make with a multi-page analysis. Grown-ups in that context referred to precedent, notably the MoS. I was satirising a common children's argument. My wit is lost on you... :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we're explaining why the guideline exists and why so many of these arguments are based on mistaken assumptions. You might be tired of reading the same responses over and over, and I'm just as tired of posting them. I wish that more users would bother to read the discussion before opining.

No offense, but I really don't care why you're being rude. I just know that you are, and this doesn't foster constructive discourse. You've gone from arguing your point to attacking people for disagreeing with you, and I wish that you would stop. —David Levy 04:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Attacking? Link please. I'm not saying I didn't, but I can't say I remember I did. So, link please. (And if by that you meant calling this debate idiotic I completely stand by that, and that was not an attack on other editors [as I noted previously] no matter how much you misconstrue it to have been). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you're belittling users who disagree with you. Instead of politely addressing their arguments, you're mocking them ("but.. but.. the grown-ups said I'm right, so sorry!") for holding such viewpoints. I realize that you're frustrated, but there's no need for that. You could have simply stated your opinion that people are blindly citing a guideline (without equating their position to that of a child).

And on that topic, I couldn't disagree more. I'm a strong supporter of WP:IAR, and I would never argue that we must do something "because the rules say so." We're explaining why the guideline exists and pointing out that it reflects longstanding consensus. (It's a description of how we do things, not a prescription handed down from above.) Meanwhile, you want us to blindly assign weight to the votes of users who misunderstand our naming conventions or wish to ignore them because they feel like it.

I wasn't referring to your comments that the both the current setup and the debate are "idiotic," but while these aren't personal attacks, they are insulting. Again, there's no need for that. My disagreement is equally strong, but you don't (and won't) see me using such terms. —David Levy 16:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you earn my respect for that. But I'm frustrated that common sense, which should be a pillar of any bureaucratic structure is being overlooked as an invalid argument. There are, of course, other arguments for the nation, but had this screaming obviously not been overlooked we wouldn't be having this debate. Perhaps I have been a little too rash, my apologies to you in that regard. You could slow down a little on the repeated replies to these 'invalid reason'-arguing users, the only person who ends up replying is me and if they wanted to seriously have a look at previous arguments they could. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You realize that many of us disagree that your position (that we should apply different criteria to these articles' titles than we do to every other article's title) is a matter of "common sense," don't you?

No one's opinions are being "overlooked," but I don't understand how an argument based entirely on a misunderstanding of our naming conventions can be deemed valid. I intend to continue replying to such messages, as this is a discussion (not a majority vote). —David Levy 02:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hexagon1, I'm still looking for the "wit." And I'm not asking you to "adress [sic] every point I make with a multi-page analysis," but responding to a request for clarification about something you've written (especially something written in a mocking tone) is the least you can do. As for the argument itself, I don't see that "but...but...I want it to be this way!" is any better than "but...but...the MoS says we should do it this way!" I'm still waiting for an argument worth dealing with. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't recognise an argument worth dealing with, you are replying why exactly? I didn't ask for a word-by-word overview of what I've written. Your misapprehension about my reply has already been addressed, I don't see why you're still on that. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "misapprehension" about your argument you're referring to. I replied to state that I don't think your argument is worth dealing with, and to state that I'm waiting for one that is. That seems pretty obvious to me. --Tkynerd (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. In the WP:DAB sense, there are two "primary" topics; Georgia should remain a dab page. --Tkynerd (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Countries are in themselves more important than subnational states, this particular country is probably more important than this particular subnational state, and if it is true that there are more hits for the country than for the state, this move has my full support. Ornilnas (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As User:David Levy has made abundantly clear above, "importance" is not among our naming criteria. We name our articles to make them easy for readers to find. This change would inconvenience almost as many readers (those looking for the U.S. state) as it would help (those looking for the country); consequently, it is not an appropriate change to make. If the numbers were different (heavily weighted in favor of one topic or the other), I would support a change. --Tkynerd (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: For all the great reasons given by myself and others in this vote and all of the bazillion previous votes. Helvetica (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I glean from the above that it is becoming clear that in terms of common usage, it is far more often that "Georgia" refers to the independent state in the Caucasus. And it should also be noted that references to the independent state almost always uses the sole word "Georgia", while those referring to the the US State would specifically include the word "State" at the minimum. Wikipedia's Georgia for the country and Georgia (U.S. state)/Georgia, United States would reflect this pattern perfectly.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Given the current news climate, more users will be expecting the country of Georgia as a first hit. The US State should be a disambiguation link at the head of the article. 129.31.76.144 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Georgia has no primary meaning. There's no reason to move Georgia (country) (other than the desire to privilege sovereign states.) Spacepotato (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"No primary meaning"? Please substaintiate that.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia has a primary meaning, and as Huaiwei notes, the state is careful about respecting that primary meaning - designating itself Georgia State, or the State of Georgia. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NC policy see the sections "Use the most easily recognized name" and Be precise when necessary Note the wording "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" (my emphasis). In the native English speaking world the current conflict is "a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing"[7] (originally said by N. Chamberlain about the Czechoslovakia crisis). This month the country has been in the news, but next month if something happens in the U.S. State, that state will be in the news -- suppose there is a Florida like vote in Georgia during the Presidential elections, or some sort of enviromental disaster. Despite what some have argued here Wikipedia Naming Policy is clear this should be a disambiguation page. Indeed before the current crisis there was a good argument that the U.S. State should have been at Georgia. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the greatest idiot of our times - well done. That very ignorance cost the world dearly. Your arrogance makes me physically ill. I know far more about the nation than the state, as do most of the world's population. Not every English speaker is American, and most Unamericans know nothing of their national subdivisions. The majority of the world is in fact geographically closer to Georgia than the US. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As Georgia was one of the 13 Colonies it is part of British history (not just US history). Further Georgia the state is well known to non American English speakers through film and literature even if they are not well versed in history and geography. How many films as notable as Gone with the Wind mention the country that was in the news during the Olympics? For sports fans the Olympics were held in Atlanta Georgia in 1996. By any measure, history, literature, popular media, sports, and geography ( the Engish speaking world know quite a lot about each other's "national subdivisions" (How many Americans have not heard of Scotland and England and see how often the term 51st state pops up in British popular culture), the U.S. state of Georgia is better known than the country of the same name in the Caucasus. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest Possible Support, what Philip Baird Shearer argues is nothing but an expression of his ignorance and arrogance. Sub-national entity can not be put on the same level with a sovereign state. It does not matter how large the country is, it does not matter how well known it is.We can not assume what "greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize".I do not even understand what the current crisis has to do with this. If most "english speakers" dont know where the country is even on the map, it is ok, many americans dont know where their own country is on the map - it does not make the US unimportant.--Satt 2 (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Importance isn't a Wikipedia naming criterion.

2. We know from the traffic statistics that the country's article typically receives only slightly more visits than the U.S. state's article does.

3. The current crisis is relevant because some respondents have cited it as justification for assigning the Georgia title to the country. —David Levy 14:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I like "that Georgian Southern accent that drives me wild" said Hank Williams, Jr. in one of his songs and I agree with him but as users above said many times sovereign country shouldn't be equaled with one state of the Union. - Darwinek (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing that our article' titles aren't indicative of the subjects' importance! —David Levy 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per David Levy's arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophrosune (talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. David Levy has said most of what there is to say: There are two entities which are commonly called Georgia; neither is overwhelmingly more often referred to than the other. Most of the arguments for the move are ad hoc bafflegab; some would like to make Wikipedia a WP:Soapbox on the South Ossetian war; at least one is false: The State of Georgia is sovereign (as State implies), even though it is part of an indissoluble Union. All of these are irrelevant, as they were the last five times we went through this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The recent traffic at Georgia (country) is larger than at Georgia (U.S. state), but this is due to the war and already declining. On the long run, readers of the English Wikipedia are more interested in the disambig page than in the country, that follows from the older statistics. (I vote here mainly because I want to show that not only arrogant Americans oppose here – I'm German.) --Cyfal (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• support. 100% agree with User:Wikidea, The state should be entitled Georgia, United States, and when we type in Georgia it should go to the country. The current Georgia page should be retitled Georgia (disambiguation).. This just seems to be one of those oddites where it's wonder somemone in charge of the project doesn't just step in & fix this nonsense. It makes wikipedia look ameturish and embarrassing. ʄ!•¿talk? 22:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per David Levy's arguments. Haven't we been through this enough already?PiccoloNamek (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The country may be said to be more important but the purpose of the page titles and disambiguation is to be of aid to the reader and in this case there are two primary meanings of Georgia. The status quo is the less of the evils. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the article traffic statistics in response to people arguing which Georgia gets more views.

http://stats.grok.se/en/

Just type in the exact names and dates and you will get the results.--Satt 2 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically that page shows that during August Georgia (country) received 1.76 million visits, the 14th most visited article on wikipedia, while Georgia (State) doesn't even appear on the list of the top 1000 most visited sites, thus has less than 147k visits. This means that Georgia (Country) was visited at least 12 times more often than Georgia (State), but obviously, due to the current situation in the country of Georgia, the number of people looking at Georgia (Country) at the moment is going to be high, are there any stats for months prior to the current situation in Georgia? BigTurnip (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See stats.grok.se, and choose your time period. The two articles are roughly in the same league, usually the country gets slightly more hits, but hits for the country are also more volatile, what probably suggests that current news events have more impact on the statistics for Georgia (country). Georgia (state) exhibits a more stable pattern. What would be interesting are statistics on how these two articles are accessed. My guess is that at least in August most traffic for the country article came from links from the main page or the Ossetia war article, and not from this disamb page. Novidmarana (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.