This page is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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.
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Listing closed. The request's basis is invalid unless and until there is consensus to move a different page to the Georgia title.
Note that the idea of moving Georgia (country) to Georgia has been proposed and rejected numerous times (and the idea of moving Georgia (U.S. state) there has even less support). —David Levy 20:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Georgia...which Georgia? CMD (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I think you may have hit on the problem here.... Dohn joe (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I thought this discussion was over. Georgia guy (talk) 19:55, 1 May 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Wow, that was quick; ok, "consensus" first. From the above it seems the last move proposal was in 2008; things may have moved on since then. I guess the principal argument is this: Georgia is a Member State of the United Nations (evidence here); the girl/drink/administrative division etc are not, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
That argument has been addressed in the previous discussions. Do you have an argument that hasn't been addressed? If not, do you have evidence of a change (inside or outside Wikipedia) likely to result in a different outcome? —David Levy 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect; this argument has been aired in the previous discussions, but not yet addressed - hence the move request. Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "addressed"? Are you suggesting that the argument has been ignored? Others have responded to it by explaining why they disagree that it's a valid reason to move the article. —David Levy 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Maculosae tegmine lyncis, your principle argument is just basically a rephrasing of previous argument that an internationally recognised country should take precedence over sub-national units like a U.S. state. And others have responded by saying that it is irrelevant, and it should instead be determined based on which one is significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings -- since there is no evidence that the Eurasian country is significantly more commonly searched for than the U.S. state, then the page on the former should not be moved. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Waa, what have I done, seemingly stumbled into a nest of entrenched POV Warriors! So as not to get too bogged down in the war of attrition that seems to have claimed the above attempts, if, as seems to be being suggested, naming should be per current Wikipedia:Polices, then most relevant seem to be NPOV Naming, WP:BIAS, and most of all Disambiguation - Primary Topics: per the last, a topic may be "primary" by (1) Usage and (2) Long-term significance. If (1) needs to be addressed (apparently in certain instances - surely here - "only one sense of primacy is relevant"), the usurped (UN Member etc) does have more far page views (per User:Henrik's stats tool) than the pretender (the administrative division); and "web presence" may not always be the best guide to "long-term significance", otherwise Justin Bieber would apparently be more significant to the history of culture and civilization than the Athenian Democracy, etc. So, with (1) out the way, if we are agreed that (2) "Long-term significance" is here the key determinant, then:
Firstly, there's no need for name-calling ("entrenched POV Warriors"). This implies that mere disagreement with your position is unreasonable. Likewise, your farcical photo comparison is needlessly insulting.
Secondly, you still aren't introducing any arguments not already addressed in previous discussions (the "war of attrition", as you call it, again implying that no response other than compliance with the move requests is reasonable).
The two criteria described at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which I helped to write, incidentally) are considered together. In this instance, neither establishes primacy for one of the "Georgia" topics.
Among our readers, the gap in usage is far too small.
The "long-term significance" criterion applies to instances in which one topic "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". This addition arose from situations such as the request to move Anne Hathaway (actress) to Anne Hathaway (based on her current prominence). It isn't intended to invite comparisons between multiple subjects with extremely high enduring notability and educational value. (And I'll note that you omitted population and economy from your list. Why is that?) —David Levy 16:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You're distorting the concept of recentism (much like you did the concept of long-term significance).
We use the terms "recent" and "short-term" in an absolute (not relative) sense. That one entity has existed for thousands of years doesn't mean that one existent for hundreds of years is recent or lacks long-term significance and endurance. The idea is to avoid assigning too much weight to contemporary (and possibly ephemeral) trends. —David Levy 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Should this go to some wider vote amongst non-involved (ie non-US, non-Georgian editors) for consensus? Next you'll be telling me that Madonna does not lead straight to the Virgin Mother of our Lord. Otherwise, I just look forward to a boy band starting up called USA so that phenomenon gets relegated to a disambiguation page too... Guess the two of us won't be getting much further without others, but thanks anyway, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Should this go to some wider vote amongst non-involved (ie non-US, non-Georgian editors) for consensus?
That isn't how Wikipedia works. All editors in good standing are welcome to participate in a discussion, bringing insights that those with different backgrounds and experiences might lack. Consensus is gauged based on the quality of the arguments presented, not by tallying votes. —David Levy 20:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the three major opinions have been represented. No need to continue a slow-speed rehash of past discussions. —David Levy 19:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
First, I cannot explain why some people here are so hostile to the idea that an English language name for a particular place does not have to match the native name. The fact is that countries with long history are known to have many foreign equivalents for their names.
Hungary is Magyarország in Hungarian but we never use it.
Greece is called Hellas
Montenegro's called Crna Gora
Germany can be called either Deutschland or Allemagne and the list goes on.
There is nothing unusual about it and this problem would not even arise in case of Georgia if some Americans did not have unusual pride in a state named after their colonial master.
This being said, I think it's better to keep this page on disambiguation. As far as I can tell, the the number of times each page is viewed is not significantly different and both entities are significant in their own right.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. The U.S. state is far more important than the country of Georgia---the U.S. state is home to twice the population of the country of Georgia, its economy is 16 times larger, it hosts one of the world's biggest airports, etc. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Please see the "Washington and Georgia" section of WP:VPR, which if successful may result in moving Georgia (U.S. state) to Georgia (state). This is one of two options in the proposal; if the other one should be successful, no Georgia articles will be moved. Either way, a successful proposal won't affect the country article or the disambiguation page, except of course for the "Georgia (state)" redirect if we move the state article there. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2013 (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: improper request. -- tariqabjotu 03:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment It doesn't seem controversial. It's surprising that the page isn't already called Georgia (disambiguation) because that name is redirected to Georgia any way. Liz Let's Talk 18:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. That's not how our disambiguation pages usually work. If the base name is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and thus used as the title of a different article, then the disambiguation page includes "(disambiguation)". If not, then the base name by itself is used as the title of the disambiguation page. The proposed move would only make sense if Georgia were to become the title of either the U.S. state or the Caucasus country. Dohn joe (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no need for two discussions. If there is a consensus to move the other article to Georgia this article would be moved automatically.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree. But the first comment seemed to think that this move would makes sense regardless of the other RM, so I thought it was worthwhile to address it here. Dohn joe (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2013 (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.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia (country) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)