This template 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.
I have an intimate knowledge of Georgia geography and physiography and have never heard of three of the listed regions in Georgia. Namely Historic South, Inland Empire, and Southern Rivers. These seem to be sourced from the Georgia Department of Tourism. And I believe they are rarely, if ever used in Georgia. I have, however heard of the georgia coast called the "Colonial Coast". But I believe that this too is marketing. Should these be removed/renamed/modified? And a broader question here would be what "regions" are appropriate? physiograhpic,ecological,administrative,etc.? all of these? I may be over thinking this....Docoga 07:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
"Inland Empire" makes me (a native Ohioan and former Georgia resident who's never been to California) think of the area around San Bernardino. I don't think it's a particular designation for an area of Georgia, notwithstanding the state's nickname as the "Empire State of the South". "Historic South": Which history? Would that be the antebellum industry and mines of Marietta, Dahlonega, etc.? Colonial Savannah? The cotton fields and plantations of southern Georgia? Seems incredibly vague. Same goes for "Southern Rivers", which in my mind could refer to the Chattahoochee, the Savannah, or maybe even some other river. -- SwissCelt 22:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
How were the Largest Cities on this template determined? Isn't Valdosta considered one of the largest cities, also? --Mjrmtg 01:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
John's Creek is listed as one of the largest cities, yet its page says there is no census info available for it.Akubhai 16:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Those are the top 10 cities in population. Johns Creek is a city that was created in just the last couple of years, so it will probably take some time for information to fill out its page.
Before the creation of the cities of Sandy Springs and Johns Creek, Valdosta was the 10th largest city in the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why Marietta and Warner Robbins were thrown in there. Marietta was the 9th largest city during the 1990s, and Warner Robbins was the 8th largest in the 1980s, but Warner Robbins has since been surpassed by the growth of Atlanta's suburban cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2007 (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.
The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Support moving Template:Georgia → Template:Georgia (U.S. state), Oppose all of the to country. In general the country gets precedence over the U.S. State, and both of them do not need to have a qualifier. The last three can be moved to U.S. state. In the case of lighthouses, Georgia is on the Black Sea, but does it actually have any lighthouses? Apteva (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, when you say the country gets precedence over the state, you mean in your opinion, correct? I think it's pretty clear from their article titles that the topics are given equal precedence editorially. --BDD (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
It was my impression that if there were two articles, for say music, the in the country one would be at Music in Georgia, the other would be Music in Georgia (U.S. State) instead of having an unnecessary dis page to choose between them. If there was a Lighthouses in Georgia article and no lighthouses in the country Georgia, I would expect it to unambiguously refer to the state, and that could be somehow transparently indicated in the article. For example, the list of article begins "This is a list of all lighthouses in the U.S. state of Georgia". That is as clear as it needs to be. It does not need U.S. in the title, unless there is also a list of lighthouses article for the country Georgia, and if and when that article is created, I would expect it to be at List of lighthouses of Georgia, and the U.S. one to add U.S. state. So it was my impression that this was the general method used - if there is no conflict, just use Georgia, and in the article specify whether it is a country or a U.S. state or a person's name. When someone tries to create an article about the country and there is a conflicting one already about the state, move the state to add (U.S. state). I can see that Georgia has been moving around between the country and a dis page. Right now the state has 508 page ratings but the country has 737. The state article has been viewed 488,445 times in the last 90 days, the country 633,855 times, and the dis page Georgia has been viewed 86,889 times. I have no problem with Georgia either being for the country and a dis page, but do we really need a dis page for all of the subtopics as well? I would rather just give the country the title where there is a conflict. So that is both my opinion, and my impression of what we had been doing. Apteva (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Support all clearly too ambiguous, and per precedent on separating the country and US state. -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Support all. The templates should be more clear and consistent with the prior (no) consensus of the previous, numerous, heavily heated requested move discussions regarding the Georgia, Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state) pages. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Support all. I'm sympathetic to the suggestion that the country should take "precedence", but the names of these templates don't have to reflect that - changing the names to remove any ambiguity for future editors can only be a good thing. bobrayner (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2012 (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.