On Wikipedia, the placing of a word in parentheses in the title of an article is primarily used as a method of disambiguation, with the parenthesised word usually being a set that the article's subject is a part of.
The basic debate has been whether the article on the Eurasian country should be the primary topic, and therefore does not need any parenthesised word in the title. Those in favor of such a move often argue that internationally recognised countries should take precedence over sub-national units like the U.S. state, though there are other suggested reasons for primary topic. Some proponents of a move have also argued that the current failure to recognize Georgia (the country) as the primary topic displays a U.S.-centric bias.
Opponents for such a renaming note that under Wikipedia's guidelines, the primary topic is determined based on which one is significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings as well as which one is more important or significant. They generally dispute that the state of Georgia is any less important; in fact, given its significantly greater population, size, and relevance on a global scale, many argue that the U.S. state is actually more important despite sharing some of its sovereignty with the American federal government and not having a seat in the United Nations. They also argue that since the Eurasian country is actually slightly less searched for than the U.S. state, then the former cannot be the primary topic.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Not sure we should be using percentages. The article cited does not. It also has about 50% of Georgia's population as "unclaimed" (i.e. no religion). So 70% for Protestant doesn't hold up (nor do the others). Student7 (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Got zapped again. http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/unclaimed.asp. This says: "The unclaimed population are those that are not adherents of any of the 188 groups included in the Church & Church Membership Data. This number should not be used as an indicator of irreligion or atheism, as it also includes adherents of many groups not included in the data."
Okay. It was not being included as an indicator of atheism. Nor "irreligion" per se. But 49% is a lot of people to belong to "some other group." There are 30,000 Protestant churches, but most of them are well under 1% of the population nearly everyplace. Notice that the figure could include Hindu, Shinto, and Devil Worship. Merely assuming that the figure is evenly distributed among the religions indicated seems uncalled for. The organization quoting these figures bears some demerit for the qualification and may be non-WP:RS for that reason. "Just ignore the man behind the curtain" is insufficient reasoning IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
There are a LOT of tiny little churches in this part of the country that do not belong to any denomination--independent Baptist churches, etc. (though I presume the source is including capital-I Independent Baptists). So the 49% figure is not too outside of what conventional wisdom and the census found. We have a really reliable source for the Census Pew numbers; I don't think the arda source is reliable (and explicit) enough to merit equal weight. RedSlash 02:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia (country) which relates to this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
"Georgia consists of 159 counties, second only to Texas, with 254. Georgia had 161 counties until the end of 1931, when Milton and Campbell were merged into Fulton."
Math Pop Quiz: If Georgia has 161 counties and two of them merge to form one county, how many counties does Georgia have left? Answer: 160, not 159. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Fulton County already existed, which is why it says "Milton and Campbell were merged into Fulton." - BilCat (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The article only has one throwaway sentence about Georgia's history before Columbus. Although there are fewer sources available, could this be expanded a little? BenedictSpring (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think every sound spelling you have for states is highly condescending. Do you really think people are unable to properly pronounce Georgia? I'm getting rid of them all.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a global audience, not just an American one. I am certain that many readers of this article will be unsure of how to pronounce the name, just as you might appreciate guidance in pronouncing Liège or Łódź. So please don't remove all the pronunciation aids. — ℜob C.aliasALAROB 21:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. Per WP:NCDAB, I get that it would not technically be inappropriate to disambiguate an ambiguous geographical name by "adding the name of a higher-level administrative division, separated by a comma". However, the current approach of parenthetically appending the generic class is also perfectly permissible, and is actually preferable in this case because it can be consistently applied in the same fashion to both of the subjects that need to be disambiguated: Georgia the state and Georgia the country. (The administrative division approach cannot be consistently applied to both, since there is no clear administrative division above the nation of Georgia.) ╠╣uw[talk] 14:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
We title the article "Washington, D.C." because that's common usage. It's not common usage (AFAIK) to call the state of Georgia "Georgia, U.S." ╠╣uw[talk] 15:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - current name fits the disambiguation guidelines on titles best. However, Georgia, U.S. (and all variations with and without punctuation) should redirect to the US state, if they don't already exist. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The current name is fine and is how we usually disambiguate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm not convinced by the argument made by the OP, who is only using city, town and village articles like Paris, Denmark as a comparison. WP:NCPLACE#Disambiguation lists a wide range of topics and locations other than settlements, and they may either use the parenthetical disambiguation or the comma-convention. I could conversely argue that the U.S. state should remain having the parenthetical disambiguation just like Victoria (Australia), Amazonas (Brazilian state), Santa Cruz Department (Bolivia), and other provinces, states, and first-level administrative country subdivisions. Scanning through all the sub-cats of Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions, there is a mixture of both parenthetical disambiguation and comma-conventions, so unless there is a consensus for a massive page move to one or the other, there is not really any compelling reason for a single page move here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose There are at least three other places called Georgia in the U.S. DrKiernan (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - per the reasons of the other opposers. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The Paris example isn't good because the State, U.S. construction isn't used like City, State. It's just called Georgia (which is a U.S. state). kennethaw88 • talk 02:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - we're not going into this debate again. ONR(talk) 03:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Zzyzx11. Comparing "the hamlet of Paris, Denmark" to a federated state that is much larger (geographically and economically) than many countries (including the aforementioned Denmark) is very much a comparison of apples to oranges. Further, if reliable sources do use "Georgia, U.S." to disambiguate the topic, it is infrequent enough that it isn't even a consideration as an article title per Wikipedia policy. The parenthetical disambiguation is the best choice because it serves the intended purpose; it lets readers know the most common title for the subject, which is Georgia, yet uses a parenthetical disambiguation to show which Georgia it is. I believe that the current title is in line with Wikipedia policy and reliable sources, and the justification that cities use commas (which is reflected by reliable sources) doesn't show that this article's title should be changed. - Aoidh (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
If I were equipped with tools; today, I would almost certainly be closing this discussion instead of saying: "of course not." It befuddles me that Od Mishehu could bring such an untenable proposition.—John Cline (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.