Talk:Georgia (country)/Requested move - July 2006

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~''
====Support (moving Georgia (country) → Georgia )====
#Support as nominator. - FrancisTyers · 12:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oups, just realise it actually is. So, I don't see the problem. Fad (ix) 23:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that maintaining the status quo (the way it actually is) is the correct way to go, you are actually in opposition to the change and should vote as such.  --Vengeful Cynic 15:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support as nominator. - FrancisTyers · 12:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support (moving [[Georgia (country)]] → [[Georgia]] )

message: *Disambiguation makes no judgements about importance, only about two things: what people are likely to want when they type "Georgia" into the search box and what usage incoming links are likely to refer to. Only if there is a supermajority for one usage, or possibly if that usage is the one after which the others are named, shall we use primary topic disambiguation. The second criterion is just as important as the first, as it affects not only our workload in fixing links but also whether a reader is confused. If an article says "The Coca-Cola Company is headquartered in Georgia", someone with only a vague idea of what each Georgia is will assume it is the country if the country's article is at Georgia. Yes, this is in theory something to be handled behind the scenes, but it is a lot harder to fix such links if we have a number of articles that should link to Georgia. --SPUI (T - C) 12:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose (keep disambiguation at [[Georgia]]) 

message: #Neither We could favour neither, by simply placing the disambiguation at Georgia so no one wins. :) Fad (ix) 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oups, just realise it actually is. So, I don't see the problem. Fad (ix) 23:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that maintaining the status quo (the way it actually is) is the correct way to go, you are actually in opposition to the change and should vote as such.  --Vengeful Cynic 15:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neither

message: Per disambiguation guidelines, "When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page." There is no consensus of the editors of the articles Georgia (country) and Georgia (US state) and therefore there should be no primary topic page. A "requested move" is irrelevant in this case.
Also to quote from the guidelines, "Confusion - Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?" Given that both entities have substantial worldwide recognition, it's presumptuous for anyone to say that they are expecting to view either one. Thus, we create a disambiguation page. This attempted move is preempting common sense. FCYTravis 01:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I'd have to say that the country has more worldwide recognition and representation than the sub-region in the US. - FrancisTyers · 08:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What my point is that this issue has nothing to do with the nationality. People who are reading the article about Georgia are probably in most cases American. Another thing that I would like wikipedians to realize is that this is not an Europe vs.USA or some ignorant statement like that. Making the move is not an underestimation for the state of Georgia, because making one more click is not going to harm the article, but Georgia (country) is definitely a ridiculous title and all the other titles such as "Republic of Georgia" and etc are not acceptable by the Constitution of Georgia. Thanks.Sosomk 10:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Let the user decide which Georgia is more notable. Where's this "anti-disambiguation" war coming from all of a sudden? No user is going to turn red with anger over a disambiguation page. Us editors are the only ones wasting our precious time with questions such as which Georgia is more important or which Syracuse is more important. No one is asking that Georgia go to the U.S. state! It's a disambiguation page! It does a great role at showing the extent of global Wikipedia coverage for the term Georgia! -newkai | talk | contribs 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Georgia and the United States are both members of the UN. So saying that the US state Georgia should be on equal footing with the nation Georgia is absurd. Intangible 18:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN is irrelevant. Please stop introducing red herrings. There is nothing in our disambiguation guidelines which mentions the UN. Please refer to WP:DISAMBIG which states that when two entities with the same name have relatively equivalent name recognition, we use a disambiguation page. FCYTravis 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The State of Georgia is homeport of the Atlantic Fleet's SSBN's, it's home of Fort Benning where many of the US's Special Forces are based at, and is home to second (and sometimes first) busiest airport in the world. The State has a bigger population, greater GDP and a larger landmass. Saying that it's minor because the country is a member of the UN is absurd also. Being a UN member is like having a drivers license, sure there are some hops to jump through, but just about everyone is a member. We should be discussing what's best for the readers of Wikipedia, not discussing world issues. By keeping the DAB at Georgia Wikipedia doesn't make any assumptions on which page the users wants to goto when they put "Georgia" in the go box. PPGMD 18:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about UN politics, but about the UN as international body of law. That is what makes the state Georgia subordinate to the nation Georgia, because the state Georga can only affect the UN trough its federal government, while the nation Georgia has direct diplomatic representation at the UN. Intangible 21:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which has nothing to do with Wikipedia, nor it's how we setup the pages. A number of people seem to think that by not having one or the other occupying the topic page we are slighting it, it has nothing to do with that, by having the DAB on the topic page we are making it easier for a user to find the information they seek, and perhaps find something new. Because traffic is likely to be split between the state and the country having the DAB on the topic page it allows users to more easily find the data because it can be easy to miss the small italics with "For other meanings of..." PPGMD 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but my argument is that a country should always have precedence over legal entities within countries in Wikipedia, such as names of provinces, county names, city names, corporation names, personal names, etc. The UN as supranational body of law between countries has both established the US and the nation Georgia as respective "law monopolist." Intangible 15:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's special about countries that makes them this way?? Georgia guy 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Countries are "law monopolists." They define what the law is for their own citizens, including the legal status of states / provinces, cities and geographical names. International law is what governs conduct between countries, or between citizens thereof. Intangible 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: Do you think it is possible to have an encyclopedia that is worldwide NPOV?? I say the answer is no, because the United States and Europe have too many differences in points of view that there is no way they can converge. Georgia guy 23:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question (for anyone)

message: Note: there is an ongoing voting  at Talk:Georgia. However, it has lasted for 2 years already, and still attracts voters. I'm not sure what would be the proper procedure to resolve the "forked" voting. Duja 14:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, personally I think that poll should probably be closed as no consensus. It's been open 2 years already. I'm not about to take unilateral action though :) - FrancisTyers · 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there we are, I decided to go ahead and do it. If anyone disagrees, please mention it on WP:ANI or WP:AN. - FrancisTyers · 17:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there will ever be a consensus unless we split into two separate Wikipedias; one for Americans and one for Europeans. Georgia guy 14:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you not mean one for USians and one for the rest of the world? - FrancisTyers · 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, let's go back to the "what does America mean" war raging on Talk:America! -newkai | talk | contribs 15:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Which of the two entities is home to globally known multi-national corporations like Coca-Cola? Which of the two has held the Olympic Games? Which of the two has the busiest airport in the world and the largest airline hub in the world, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport? I daresay in the English-speaking world, the state has by far the greater prominence on a global stage. Primary disambiguation is called for. FCYTravis 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So yes, the United States. - FrancisTyers · 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you just totally ignore my statement? Are you claiming that the busiest airport in the world, Coca-Cola and the Olympics are all some sort of parochial American phenomena that are ignored once you step off a plane in London or Toulouse or Beijing or Sydney or Sao Paulo? That's utterly absurd. FCYTravis 21:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coca-Cola is a symbol of the US (cf. Cocacolonization), the busiest airport in the world, for how long? So the Olympics was held there one year, its been held in a lot of sub-regions in a lot of countries. Was the Olympics widely advertised as in Georgia or in the United States? - FrancisTyers · 22:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Coca Cola is a symbol of the US. It has also become part of the global pop culture. Whether that is good or bad is debatable, but its massive global impact (perhaps more widespread than any other corporation) is undeniable. One cannot simply wish away our nation's impacts on the world, or pretend that these things are irrelevant. The history of Coca-Cola's spread is inextricably intertwined into America's history of international relations (bottling plants opened up to serve World War II troops, for instance). Are you to claim that somehow we should ignore these facts because it's inconveniently American? FCYTravis 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of Coca Cola is interesting, you're right, but it is interesting not relation to Georgia, but it is interesting in relation to the United States (Which is the point I was trying to make). Coca Cola *bam* United States, America and not Coca Cola *bam* Georgia. Do you still think I am being anti-American? I'm disappointed about that frankly. But if I'm unable to convince you otherwise, and it is sad that I can't think of anything that would persuade you of the fact :( - FrancisTyers · 09:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am afraid it is turning into a cultural disscusion again, but the discussion does really make any sense. Ok. I do admit that the Unites States has a great potential in business as well as in politics and this is one of the main reasons that U.S. is the strongest country in the World and has more Assets than EU and Japan combined. Coca-Cola is indeed 100% American and it is based in the state of Georgia, but why does it matter in this case? The value of business is 0 without its international business relations. If we talk about the political significance, the country of Georgia is a very important country politically and geographically. I would advise to keep up to date with latest political events concerning Georgia: by the way the president of Georgia met with with the US president two days ago. In fact, we also do have lots of Coca-Cola factories in Georgia, Georgia also donated the most troops in Iraq if we consider its population and Georgia already ruined its landmark by the the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pineline which is going to benefit the US and Western Europe as well as all the countries involved in it. Personally, I like Pepsi better but that also does not mean anything. It is just my personal opinion.Sosomk 09:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: ====Azerbaijan====
As User:Grandmaster noted, there's a similar case with the name of "Azerbaijan". We have the country of Azerbaijan and the region of Azerbaijan in Iran. The region has a larger population (~10 mil) than the country (~8.4 mil). bogdan 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is valid, but it is a rough comparison. You can go ahead and change it on English wikipedia without much resistance from the Iranians, because their native tongue is not English. What my point is that this issue has nothing to do with the nationality. People who are reading the article about Georgia are probably in most cases American. Another thing that I would like wikipedians to realize is that this is not an Europe vs.USA or some ignorant statement like that. Making the move is not an underestimation for the state of Georgia, because making one more click is not going to harm the article, but Georgia (country) is definitely a ridiculous title and all the other titles such as "Republic of Georgia" and etc are not acceptable by the Constitution of Georgia. Thanks.Sosomk 10:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not the Iranians, its the Azerbaijanis, are you suggesting that there would be few complaints if we moved Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan (country)? - FrancisTyers · 11:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understood my point. For example, if there was an issue of moving Azerbaijan (country) to Azerbaijan on Persian wikipedia, there would be lots of Iranian jingos who would fight over it. I don't see any real reason why the Georgia (country) should not be removed. Sosomk 19:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All Wikipedias are supposed to be universal, not country-specific. This should be even more true for the English language wikipedia, as English is currently the lingua franca in the world and since this wikipedia has the most information, it's read by people across the world, including people from non-English countries. You should know, for example, that more than half of the EU citizens can speak English... bogdan 08:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: bogdan, I agree with you and I am saying the same thing that nationality has nothing to do with this issue. In addition, I believe that most people rading the article are our American friends. It is just politically and technically correct to move Georgia (country) to Georgia.Sosomk 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And that would work as an argument only if, just as Farsi speakers tend to be centered on Persian/Iranian cultural references, all native English speakers would be identifiable with the United States! Dahn 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible parallels

message: As User:Grandmaster noted, there's a similar case with the name of "Azerbaijan". We have the country of Azerbaijan and the region of Azerbaijan in Iran. The region has a larger population (~10 mil) than the country (~8.4 mil). bogdan 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is valid, but it is a rough comparison. You can go ahead and change it on English wikipedia without much resistance from the Iranians, because their native tongue is not English. What my point is that this issue has nothing to do with the nationality. People who are reading the article about Georgia are probably in most cases American. Another thing that I would like wikipedians to realize is that this is not an Europe vs.USA or some ignorant statement like that. Making the move is not an underestimation for the state of Georgia, because making one more click is not going to harm the article, but Georgia (country) is definitely a ridiculous title and all the other titles such as "Republic of Georgia" and etc are not acceptable by the Constitution of Georgia. Thanks.Sosomk 10:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not the Iranians, its the Azerbaijanis, are you suggesting that there would be few complaints if we moved Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan (country)? - FrancisTyers · 11:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understood my point. For example, if there was an issue of moving Azerbaijan (country) to Azerbaijan on Persian wikipedia, there would be lots of Iranian jingos who would fight over it. I don't see any real reason why the Georgia (country) should not be removed. Sosomk 19:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All Wikipedias are supposed to be universal, not country-specific. This should be even more true for the English language wikipedia, as English is currently the lingua franca in the world and since this wikipedia has the most information, it's read by people across the world, including people from non-English countries. You should know, for example, that more than half of the EU citizens can speak English... bogdan 08:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: bogdan, I agree with you and I am saying the same thing that nationality has nothing to do with this issue. In addition, I believe that most people rading the article are our American friends. It is just politically and technically correct to move Georgia (country) to Georgia.Sosomk 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And that would work as an argument only if, just as Farsi speakers tend to be centered on Persian/Iranian cultural references, all native English speakers would be identifiable with the United States! Dahn 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Azerbaijan

message: I'd like to make a comparison between Georgia (country) & Georgia (US state) and New York & New York City. One is a subnational (federal?) unit, the other is a subfederal unit (city). The city is more widely known than the state, but the state gets to sit at New York, because 'New York' is the proper name of the state, and (this is implicit, I may be wrong in this interpretation) a state should have precedence over a city with regard to naming because it is a more fundamental division (see ). If we followed the rationale evident here, New York should be a disambiguation between the city and the state. However, this is not a perfect analogy, because the city has other potential names for use, wheras Georgia [the country] only permits one title as proper. --Sam Pointon 15:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New York

message: Why is the strength of wanting Georgia (country) moved to Georgia more than it was 2 years ago?? Please explain with as much detail as you can. Georgia guy 21:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, wikipedia is more international than it was two years, the percentage of Americans is lower than it used to be. bogdan 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it has to do more with poeple being aware of the existence of Georgia (country) these days.--Eupator 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I was aware of it since I heard the beginning of its existence in 1991. Do you think it is probable that it will still be a country as late as 2221?? Georgia guy 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that the state of Georgia will still be a state by then? Fad (ix) 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know of any regions that were formerly states of the United States but no longer are. Anyone know of any?? Georgia guy 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that no one knows what will happen by then. I don't see what is the relevancy of the plausible statu of Georgia in the hundreds years to come. To be fair, indeed Georgia should direct to the country, but given that this is English Wikipedia it becomes more problematic. I understand the concern of Americans. It is like having in the Armenian language Wikipedia an Armenian province with the same name as the one of a country and someone expecting Armenians to approve that the direct link direct to the country. In all honesty, I will not have a problem with that, but I will understand those who might have a problem. It is obvious that a concensus will never be reached, and that it is a waste of energy to fight over something which does not affect directly the content of the articles. Fad (ix) 01:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The prognosis for 2221 is in the domain of sci fi and is absolutely irrelevant to the present discussion. Let's leave this subject to the future generations of Wikipedians if our encyclopedia outlives Georgia "the country" and the State of Georgia:) The desire to move Georgia (country) to Georgia is as strong as it was two years ago, but the number of Wiki users supporting the move seems to have been increased. Also, I think the "State of Georgia" is much more acceptable and generally usable form than the annoying name "Georgia (country)". --Kober 04:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. Jonathunder 05:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody PLEASE answer this question 

message: I came up with a possible consensus. It is obvious that using Georgia (country) is politically and technically wrong. The constitution of Georgia says that the official name of the coutry is "Georgia". In addition, there is no discussion of moving Georgia (U.S. state) to Georgia. Our American friends have to make 2 clicks to see the information about the state of Georgia anyway. What if we move Georgia (country) to Georgia and write on the top. See also Georgia (U.S. State) and Georgia (disamb). Then people don't have to make any extra clicks to see the information about the state of Georgia. I believe that this is the most realistic consensus.Sosomk 07:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Georgia (country) were moved to Georgia that would be the right thing to do, IMO.  We usually separate out "likely to be searched for" disambiguation things to be listed directly on the page, using phrasing like "If you're looking for 'prominent thing', see Blah (foo); for other uses of the term, see Blah (disambiguation)."  I may change my vote to neutral, because I think this is reasonable enough. --Delirium 07:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "Georgia (country)" is not wrong; it is standard disambiguation, and implies that the name is Georgia. --SPUI (T - C) 07:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What? Sosomk, have you seen the discussion above? There are currently 27 people opposed to your consensus. And of course, "(country)" is not part of the name, but when multiple entities share a name, Wikipedia uses parenthetical modifiers to clarify the entries. Saturn's satellite is not called Titan (moon), nor is the New Zealander's name Robert Lawson (architect), but in all cases, they share their name with other entities. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with Delirium and I don't subscribe to the point of view which says that the constitutions of sovereign countries with a huge political importance for the UN and the world in general can be disrespected. I would advise to keep up to date with the current political events: by the way the president of Georgia and the president of the U.S. met several days ago. Robert Lawson (architect) is a single individual and this comparison is not very accurate. I am very mystified by the resistance from some wikipedians.Sosomk 10:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Completely agreed with Sosomk and Delirium. Our American friends will just have to realize minor subnational entities are not of the same level of importance as independent countries. Look at Luxembourg for example: as an independent country it occupies its own article space, whereas the neighbouring and much larger province of Luxembourg (Belgium) is clearly linked to from the disambiguation space. -- Jordi·✆ 14:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But Sakartvelo is not the country's name in English. Country name: Georgia. The English Wikipedia uses English names. -- Jordi·✆ 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hence one of the suggestions puts it in parentheses. - FrancisTyers · 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many non-Georgians or people who don't have foreknowledge of the country know its transliterated name? I couldn't tell you it off-hand before now, so I don't think it reduces clicks for the average reader looking for the country. If we're not talking about the average reader, then it's moot, because the non-average reader will just tap in Georgia (country), bypassing the disambig altogether. --Sam Pointon 16:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Georgia (country) will redirect to Georgia (Sakartvelo). Of course it reduces clicks for the average person looking for the country, the Georgia page redirects to the page with the country on. - FrancisTyers · 17:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my apologies on the clicks front, I didn't read thoroughly enough. But if Georgia redirects to Sakartvelo, why not just have it at Georgia in the first place? --Sam Pointon 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it has been said that this will make disambiguation clean up harder. If Georgia is a redirect to the country article, then it won't have any legitimate links to the country article, only links that point to either the state or the country without specifying. I believe that is the rationale, to be honest I'm not totally convinced, but it seemed to be an argument that was presented above. - FrancisTyers · 17:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This proposal fails to address the contention that at least as many, if not more, users of this encyclopedia are looking for Georgia (U.S. state) as are looking for Georgia (country) - and thus a disambiguation page should be used so that neither is given precedence. Until any evidence is presented that there is an overwhelming majority of users looking for one or the other, Georgia should remain a disambiguation page. FCYTravis 23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: This is a possible compromise suggestion:
# Move Georgia (country) to Georgia (Sakartvelo) or Sakartvelo.
# Move Georgia to Georgia (disambiguation)
# Redirect Georgia to Georgia (Sakartvelo) or Sakartvelo.
# Place a disambiguation notice at the top of Georgia (Sakartvelo) or Sakartvelo pointing at Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (disambiguation)
This way the complaint regarding "can't find whatlinkshere" is taken care of, the complaint that a subunit of a country is taking precedent over a sovereign state is taken care of, the clicks will be reduced for people wanting the country, and the clicks will stay the same for people wanting the state. - FrancisTyers · 16:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Sakartvelo is not the country's name in English. Country name: Georgia. The English Wikipedia uses English names. -- Jordi·✆ 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hence one of the suggestions puts it in parentheses. - FrancisTyers · 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many non-Georgians or people who don't have foreknowledge of the country know its transliterated name? I couldn't tell you it off-hand before now, so I don't think it reduces clicks for the average reader looking for the country. If we're not talking about the average reader, then it's moot, because the non-average reader will just tap in Georgia (country), bypassing the disambig altogether. --Sam Pointon 16:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Georgia (country) will redirect to Georgia (Sakartvelo). Of course it reduces clicks for the average person looking for the country, the Georgia page redirects to the page with the country on. - FrancisTyers · 17:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my apologies on the clicks front, I didn't read thoroughly enough. But if Georgia redirects to Sakartvelo, why not just have it at Georgia in the first place? --Sam Pointon 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it has been said that this will make disambiguation clean up harder. If Georgia is a redirect to the country article, then it won't have any legitimate links to the country article, only links that point to either the state or the country without specifying. I believe that is the rationale, to be honest I'm not totally convinced, but it seemed to be an argument that was presented above. - FrancisTyers · 17:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This proposal fails to address the contention that at least as many, if not more, users of this encyclopedia are looking for Georgia (U.S. state) as are looking for Georgia (country) - and thus a disambiguation page should be used so that neither is given precedence. Until any evidence is presented that there is an overwhelming majority of users looking for one or the other, Georgia should remain a disambiguation page. FCYTravis 23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further suggestion

message: Can we be open-minded and make a right decision despite our nationality? Anybody in th world should realize that the country of Georia has the title "Georgia" for more centuries than the state of Georgia. It is a sovereign political entity, has its own culture, traditions, language and etc and politically is more important than the State. However, the state of Georgia has also very important and interesting culture, but the country is just more important today and deserves the title "Georgia". Couintries should have a priority of choosing the title. Any discussions disproving this statement make no sense and please don't waste your time. It is a summertime and try to relax.Sosomk 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it more important today in any way independent of being an independent nation?? Georgia guy 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the overwhelming majority of the world both are foreign, so for them (us) the question is: is a foreign independent country today more important than a foreign subnational entity today? The answer for many is yes. Zocky | picture popups 19:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What in the world are you talking about? What prestige is there to be had? And yes, importance should be one of the first things to look at, and so should practicality. OTOH, ignorance of readers (and editors) is not something that should be taken into account and all arguments based on "I think more people will be looking for one, because I personally don't know a thing about the other" should be discounted. Zocky | picture popups 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More discussions