Hi all, Just came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgia . It is obvious beyond words to me that [[Georgia]] should be the country, and the US state should be at something like [[Georgia (US State)]]. However, an ongoing poll evenly ties between that, and keeping Georgia is a disambiguation page.
I find this sad. :(
Steve
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Just came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgia . It is obvious beyond words to me that [[Georgia]] should be the country, and the US state should be at something like [[Georgia (US State)]]. However, an ongoing poll evenly ties between that, and keeping Georgia is a disambiguation page.
I find this sad. :(
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Voting is evil, Discussion is good. (can someone meta-link this)
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Just came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgia . It is obvious beyond words to me that [[Georgia]] should be the country, and the US state should be at something like [[Georgia (US State)]]. However, an ongoing poll evenly ties between that, and keeping Georgia is a disambiguation page.
It should quite plainly be a primary topic disambiguation redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_on_My_Mind
This debate has sadly gone on for many a long megabyte.
-- Sam
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I find this sad. :(
Why, exactly?
Two well-known things are called Georgia. It is thus logical for the title to be a disambiguation between them, and everything else known by that name.
-Matt
On 4/10/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Why, exactly?
Two well-known things are called Georgia. It is thus logical for the title to be a disambiguation between them, and everything else known by that name.
-Matt
Ohh, come on, there's a huge difference between Georgia the Country and Georgia the State. Georgia is a WHOLE country. Like, bigass, we got troups, "why don't we take this outside, former Soviet country-style", international trade, country.
Disambigging those two would be like disambigging "Paris" to separate "Paris, Texas" and "Paris, France". This is the worst kind of US-centrism.
</rant>
--Oskar
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 4/10/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Why, exactly?
Two well-known things are called Georgia. It is thus logical for the title to be a disambiguation between them, and everything else known by that name.
-Matt
Ohh, come on, there's a huge difference between Georgia the Country and Georgia the State. Georgia is a WHOLE country. Like, bigass, we got troups, "why don't we take this outside, former Soviet country-style", international trade, country.
Disambigging those two would be like disambigging "Paris" to separate "Paris, Texas" and "Paris, France". This is the worst kind of US-centrism.
</rant>
--Oskar
I've never set foot in the US and I've still seen and heard more references to Georgia the state than Georgia the country in my entire life. I think making [[Georgia]] a disambig is a good compromise.
John
John Lee wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 4/10/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Why, exactly?
Two well-known things are called Georgia. It is thus logical for the title to be a disambiguation between them, and everything else known by that name.
-Matt
Ohh, come on, there's a huge difference between Georgia the Country and Georgia the State. Georgia is a WHOLE country. Like, bigass, we got troups, "why don't we take this outside, former Soviet country-style", international trade, country.
Disambigging those two would be like disambigging "Paris" to separate "Paris, Texas" and "Paris, France". This is the worst kind of US-centrism.
</rant>
--Oskar
I've never set foot in the US and I've still seen and heard more references to Georgia the state than Georgia the country in my entire life. I think making [[Georgia]] a disambig is a good compromise.
Stalin was from Georgia...
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
John Lee wrote:
I've never set foot in the US and I've still seen and heard more references to Georgia the state than Georgia the country in my entire life. I think making [[Georgia]] a disambig is a good compromise.
Stalin was from Georgia...
Well, I don't discuss Stalin's place of birth on a regular basis. :p
John
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 23:07 +0800, John Lee wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
John Lee wrote:
I've never set foot in the US and I've still seen and heard more references to Georgia the state than Georgia the country in my entire life. I think making [[Georgia]] a disambig is a good compromise.
Stalin was from Georgia...
Well, I don't discuss Stalin's place of birth on a regular basis. :p
So what?
Actually my aunt was kidnapped in Georgia (the country).
And it has an interesting cuisine (often reckoned to be the best of the central european ones, based on pomegranate and walnuts). There are several Georgian (the country) restaurants in the city where I live, but no Georgian (the state) ones.
The oddest thing is the [[South Georgia]] is also a dab page, even though it is an island, while all the other mentions are just southern areas of Georgias. I think all the other uses are basically bogus.
Justinc
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
John Lee wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I've never set foot in the US and I've still seen and heard more references to Georgia the state than Georgia the country in my entire life. I think making [[Georgia]] a disambig is a good compromise.
Stalin was from Georgia...
Yes, but he did not become famous by retaining the name Dzhugashvili.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
John Lee wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I've never set foot in the US and I've still seen and heard more references to Georgia the state than Georgia the country in my entire life. I think making [[Georgia]] a disambig is a good compromise.
Stalin was from Georgia...
Yes, but he did not become famous by retaining the name Dzhugashvili.
Bless you. You meant Gdankzig, right?
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Ohh, come on, there's a huge difference between Georgia the Country and Georgia the State. Georgia is a WHOLE country. Like, bigass, we got troups, "why don't we take this outside, former Soviet country-style", international trade, country.
Disambigging those two would be like disambigging "Paris" to separate "Paris, Texas" and "Paris, France". This is the worst kind of US-centrism.
I have no position on exactly how this disambiguation should work. However, I would like to point out that in terms of population, physical size, total international trade, total GDP, per capita GDP, the US state of Georgia is far bigger than the nation of Georgia.
So the "Paris, Texas" versus "Paris, France" comparison is a bit sketchy, at least.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jimmy Wales stated for the record:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Ohh, come on, there's a huge difference between Georgia the Country and Georgia the State. Georgia is a WHOLE country. Like, bigass, we got troups, "why don't we take this outside, former Soviet country-style", international trade, country.
Disambigging those two would be like disambigging "Paris" to separate "Paris, Texas" and "Paris, France". This is the worst kind of US-centrism.
I have no position on exactly how this disambiguation should work. However, I would like to point out that in terms of population, physical size, total international trade, total GDP, per capita GDP, the US state of Georgia is far bigger than the nation of Georgia.
So the "Paris, Texas" versus "Paris, France" comparison is a bit sketchy, at least.
/me assiduously avoids making any comparisons among the world leaders produced by the two Georgias.
- -- Sean Barrett | There's very little advice in men's magazines, sean@epoptic.org | because men think, "I know what I'm doing. | Just show me somebody naked!" --Jerry Seinfeld
On Apr 11, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
/me assiduously avoids making any comparisons among the world leaders produced by the two Georgias.
Jimmy Carter vs. Stalin? That SHOULD be left as an exercise to the reader.
On 4/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Ohh, come on, there's a huge difference between Georgia the Country and Georgia the State. Georgia is a WHOLE country. Like, bigass, we got troups, "why don't we take this outside, former Soviet country-style", international trade, country.
Disambigging those two would be like disambigging "Paris" to separate "Paris, Texas" and "Paris, France". This is the worst kind of US-centrism.
(English) Wikipedia does not decide such things by a taxonomic classification of importance.
It decides it by the purely practical matter of seeing if one usage so outweighs other usages that it deserves the primary topic. Among users of the English language, the US State is referred to at least as often as the nation.
Probably, in fact, more so, but that's not important. What matters from the point of view of primary topic disambiguation is whether one use of a word OVERWHELMS other uses. In the case of 'Georgia', this test is failed both ways. Neither the state nor the nation so overwhelms the word that either should have the primary topic.
A quick look at the Wikipedia articles tells us that Georgia the state has a significantly greater population than Georgia the nation, besides ... which just shows the futility of basing this on 'importance', because in many cases it will be impossible to reach agreement.
-Matt
At 11:49 -0700 10/4/06, Matt Brown wrote:
On 4/10/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Ohh, come on, there's a huge difference between Georgia the Country and Georgia the State. Georgia is a WHOLE country. Like, bigass, we got troups, "why don't we take this outside, former Soviet country-style", international trade, country.
Disambigging those two would be like disambigging "Paris" to separate "Paris, Texas" and "Paris, France". This is the worst kind of US-centrism.
(English) Wikipedia does not decide such things by a taxonomic classification of importance.
It decides it by the purely practical matter of seeing if one usage so outweighs other usages that it deserves the primary topic. Among users of the English language, the US State is referred to at least as often as the nation.
Probably, in fact, more so, but that's not important. What matters from the point of view of primary topic disambiguation is whether one use of a word OVERWHELMS other uses. In the case of 'Georgia', this test is failed both ways. Neither the state nor the nation so overwhelms the word that either should have the primary topic.
A quick look at the Wikipedia articles tells us that Georgia the state has a significantly greater population than Georgia the nation, besides ... which just shows the futility of basing this on 'importance', because in many cases it will be impossible to reach agreement.
-Matt
Therein lies the rub. Disambiguation would disappear if we verified links.
[[Georgia]] should not exist at all (apart from the disambiguation page), but [[Georgia, State (US)]] and [[Georgia, Country]] would be extant nodes, to which we would link, viz.
[[Georgia State (US)|Georgia]] [[Georgia Country |Georgia]]
Many peoples names are richer examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wilson_%28disambiguation%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_ambiguous_human_names
And so
[[Richard L. Wilson (journalist)|Richard Wilson]] [[Richard Wilson, Sculptor |Richard Wilson]]
would be correct links.
But [[Richard Wilson]] would not be a biography page; it would be a disambiguation page only.
Gordo
G'day Steve,
Just came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgia . It is obvious beyond words to me that [[Georgia]] should be the country, and the US state should be at something like [[Georgia (US State)]]. However, an ongoing poll evenly ties between that, and keeping Georgia is a disambiguation page.
I find this sad. :(
It's not "obvious beyond words" to an American. Who are we, us interfering non-Seppos who've been graciously allowed to join this project, to dictate to the Americans that their fantastic state is less important than some country they've never even heard of?
For shame, you arrogant foreigner!
* Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Steve,
Just came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgia . It is obvious beyond words to me that [[Georgia]] should be the country, and the US state should be at something like [[Georgia (US State)]]. However, an ongoing poll evenly ties between that, and keeping Georgia is a disambiguation page.
I find this sad. :(
It's not "obvious beyond words" to an American. Who are we, us interfering non-Seppos who've been graciously allowed to join this project, to dictate to the Americans that their fantastic state is less important than some country they've never even heard of?
For shame, you arrogant foreigner!
Setting aside the facts that the state is bigger, has a larger population, and is more heavily wiki-linked to than the country... the current 'Georgia = disambiguation page' to 'Georgia (country)' and 'Georgia (U.S. state)' is decidedly non 'US centric'.
Regardless of who is and is not being 'arrogant' here it seems clear that neither 'Georgia' is so overwhelmingly more likely to be searched for than the other that it can be assumed to be the intended destination in a high majority of cases... ergo going to a disambig page is the logical course.
Did we really need to go out of our way to 'bash the Americans' again?
G'day Conrad,
Regardless of who is and is not being 'arrogant' here it seems clear that neither 'Georgia' is so overwhelmingly more likely to be searched for than the other that it can be assumed to be the intended destination in a high majority of cases... ergo going to a disambig page is the logical course.
Did we really need to go out of our way to 'bash the Americans' again?
Just ask yourself: if Georgia (US state) was not, in fact, a US state, but an Australian state, or a British county, or ... whatever ... would we have had all those arguments? I suspect it would indeed have been "obvious beyond words" if the grand ol' US of A wasn't involved.
* Mark Gallagher wrote:
Just ask yourself: if Georgia (US state) was not, in fact, a US state, but an Australian state, or a British county, or ... whatever ... would we have had all those arguments? I suspect it would indeed have been "obvious beyond words" if the grand ol' US of A wasn't involved.
Depends. In the hypothetical are we assuming that 'Georgia Australia' would still have twice as many wiki-links to it as the country does? Double the population?
If so then yes... I'd think we'd still be having this debate. It seems obvious to me that people who type 'Georgia' into the search box are going to be looking for the state a good deal of the time... possibly even a majority of the time (regardless of a long outdated claim to the contrary on that talk page).
THAT should be the determinant. What is most helpful to our users. Not which set of xenophobic ideals we determine to be 'superior'. If people typing 'Georgia' are going to want the country alot of the time and the state alot of the time then they should GET the disambig page so they can choose. ONLY if they were overwhelmingly more likely to be looking for the country would it make sense to go there automatically... and that just isn't the case.
On 4/11/06, Conrad Dunkerson conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net wrote:
THAT should be the determinant. What is most helpful to our users. Not which set of xenophobic ideals we determine to be 'superior'. If people
I don't think there is anything remotely xenophobic about a rule that states that given a conflict between any country and any lower political entitiy, the country takes precedence. If there is, please enlighten me.
Also, I don't think you'd be particularly shocked if you typed Georgia in the search box, found yourself at the country page and had to click "Georgia (US state)" at the very top. Well, I'd hope not.
Steve
On 4/10/06, Conrad Dunkerson conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net wrote:
- Mark Gallagher wrote:
Just ask yourself: if Georgia (US state) was not, in fact, a US state, but an Australian state, or a British county, or ... whatever ... would we have had all those arguments? I suspect it would indeed have been "obvious beyond words" if the grand ol' US of A wasn't involved.
Depends. In the hypothetical are we assuming that 'Georgia Australia' would still have twice as many wiki-links to it as the country does? Double the population?
The issue of wiki-links is a bit problematic - a US state will have more Wiki-links than an Australian state of equal prominence (population, global impact, newsworthiness - assuming there was such a way to compare such a thing) because there are more US-centric editors. It's the whole systemic bias thing - not only are American editors more likely to be aware of the American state, so would Canadian editors, probably West Indian, maybe European - because of the importance of US-based news organisations. If we want a truly balanced encyclopaedia, we need to take these things into account
On 4/10/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Just ask yourself: if Georgia (US state) was not, in fact, a US state, but an Australian state, or a British county, or ... whatever ... would we have had all those arguments? I suspect it would indeed have been "obvious beyond words" if the grand ol' US of A wasn't involved.
You're still trying to argue based on taxonomic importance, which is NOT what Wikipedia's naming conventions are supposed to be about.
In other words, you think that Wikipedia's naming conventions should recognise a natural order of primacy, and the MOST IMPORTANT user of a name by that order should get the name, and the others should have to be disambiguated. You think that a nation should automatically have primacy over a subdivision of another nation, simply by fact of the one being a nation and the other one a state in a larger nation.
That's not the way our naming conventions work (except in a few specific areas where we've decided that consistency is good). Instead, something gets the primary article if it overwhelms other meanings of the word, and we disambiguate at the primary spot if nothing overwhelms.
Yes, this IS english-speaker-centric, but the very fact of writing an encylopedia in English is already deciding to do that.
-Matt
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this IS english-speaker-centric, but the very fact of writing an encylopedia in English is already deciding to do that.
Thank you. This is a beautiful way of expressing something I've been thinking about for some while.
-- Sam
On 4/11/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this IS english-speaker-centric, but the very fact of writing an encylopedia in English is already deciding to do that.
Thank you. This is a beautiful way of expressing something I've been thinking about for some while.
Can you elaborate? Perhaps we should decide if we really want this bias, or not? [[WP:CSB]] thinks we don't.
Question: To use Jimbo's well-worn poor African once again, what does he expect? Georgia the country, or Georgia the state? Does he care that most Wikipedians are American, British, Canadian, etc? Should he just grateful for whatever information he can get, regardless of whose biases, interests and prejudices it reflects? Should he not be concerned if, when he looks up Zaire, he comes up with a suburb in Arizona?
I did not raise this issue to bash Americans. Nor would I have a complaint if a state in the US were disambig'ed with a terristory in Pakistan. But for a mere state in the US to be considered somehow "equal" in importance, interest, searchability as a *country* just seems wrong. I'm really having trouble putting into words exactly why I feel that way, so I'll leave it for a bit and come back to it.
[[WP:CSB]] really is worth a read.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/11/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this IS english-speaker-centric, but the very fact of writing an encylopedia in English is already deciding to do that.
Thank you. This is a beautiful way of expressing something I've been thinking about for some while.
Can you elaborate? Perhaps we should decide if we really want this bias, or not? [[WP:CSB]] thinks we don't.
Question: To use Jimbo's well-worn poor African once again, what does he expect? Georgia the country, or Georgia the state? Does he care that most Wikipedians are American, British, Canadian, etc? Should he just grateful for whatever information he can get, regardless of whose biases, interests and prejudices it reflects? Should he not be concerned if, when he looks up Zaire, he comes up with a suburb in Arizona?
I did not raise this issue to bash Americans. Nor would I have a complaint if a state in the US were disambig'ed with a terristory in Pakistan. But for a mere state in the US to be considered somehow "equal" in importance, interest, searchability as a *country* just seems wrong. I'm really having trouble putting into words exactly why I feel that way, so I'll leave it for a bit and come back to it.
[[WP:CSB]] really is worth a read.
I'm largely in favour of primary disambiguation for precisely the reason that without it, you get minor lawyers, actors and baseball players taking precedance over historically important politicians who's only crime is that they weren't from the US.
Back to the Georgia issue: suppose someone in the former Soviet territory is trying to learn English, they have internet access, and they look up their home country in the English Lanuage Wikipedia. Imagine their horror when they find that their glorious homeland has been usurped by some two-bit swamp on the East Coast of the United States...
That being said, I'm quite happy with the current status of [[Georgia]] as a primary disambiguation page. Yes, I'll go help fix the links to it.
On 4/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Back to the Georgia issue: suppose someone in the former Soviet territory is trying to learn English, they have internet access, and they look up their home country in the English Lanuage Wikipedia. Imagine their horror when they find that their glorious homeland has been usurped by some two-bit swamp on the East Coast of the United States...
Is the goal of Wikipedia naming conventions to make people feel good about themselves, or to help them find the article they are looking for? I think our hypothetical Georgian will find some way to cope, whatever the case may be.
FF
Forgive me for reordering this!
On 4/11/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I did not raise this issue to bash Americans. Nor would I have a complaint if a state in the US were disambig'ed with a terristory in Pakistan. But for a mere state in the US to be considered somehow "equal" in importance, interest, searchability as a *country* just seems wrong. I'm really having trouble putting into words exactly why I feel that way, so I'll leave it for a bit and come back to it.
Note that I am actually of the opinion that the country is of more prominence (how often have I heard Georgia-the-state on the UK news? Not since November 2004, and not a great deal then). But I recognise that others disagree, so I think the disambiguation is a good and satisfactory compromise.
Note though that I think having the country first is more useful, not less biased.
On 4/11/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this IS english-speaker-centric, but the very fact of writing an encylopedia in English is already deciding to do that.
Thank you. This is a beautiful way of expressing something I've been thinking about for some while.
Can you elaborate? Perhaps we should decide if we really want this bias, or not? [[WP:CSB]] thinks we don't.
I don't think the naming of an article can itself make said article/Wikipedia as a whole biased. It's the content and the *existance* (or non-existance) of the articles that causes the bias. That to me is what CSB is about. In the English encyclopaedia, we should look to what most English speakers will expect, because they are our primary audience and, in a very real sense, our customers.
Question: To use Jimbo's well-worn poor African once again, what does he expect? Georgia the country, or Georgia the state? Does he care that most Wikipedians are American, British, Canadian, etc? Should he just grateful for whatever information he can get, regardless of whose biases, interests and prejudices it reflects? Should he not be concerned if, when he looks up Zaire, he comes up with a suburb in Arizona?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that last statement, given that Zaire is about the African country... Anyway, yes, we should take into account our poor African. We also take into account Australians, Indians, Texans and penguins by using disambiguation notices at the top of articles.
-- Sam
On 4/11/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I did not raise this issue to bash Americans. Nor would I have a complaint if a state in the US were disambig'ed with a terristory in Pakistan. But for a mere state in the US to be considered somehow "equal" in importance, interest, searchability as a *country* just seems wrong. I'm really having trouble putting into words exactly why I feel that way, so I'll leave it for a bit and come back to it.
From my point of view, it's not expressing that [[Georgia (U.S.
state)]] and [[Georgia (country)]] are equal. Rather, it's saying that neither SO OVERWHELMS THE OTHER that it deserves the primary topic.
The very fact that there is disagreement among sensible contributors says that neither page should be primary. One page should occupy the primary name only when there is broad consensus that it should.
I'm very glad, by the way, that the existance of the "City, State" convention among Americans means that we avoid many disambiguation battles over their names.
I agree that one should read [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]] and its subpages, and think about it. (BTW, don't you hate all those TLAs you have to look up?) However, I think in this case a disambiguation page is the correct thing to counter systemic bias; assuming what someone wants when they link or search to [[Georgia]] is a strong bias in itself, when both the state and the country are commonly referred to by different populations without qualifiers.
-Matt
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The very fact that there is disagreement among sensible contributors says that neither page should be primary.
There, I disagree. If the sensible contributors are not representative of whatever they should be reperesentative of, then their disagreement isn't useful.
One page should occupy the primary name only when there is broad consensus that it should.
Hmmm...well I haven't had much experience determining such things for big important pages like these, but my experience with smaller ones has mostly been that one person makes a sensible argument, doesn't get much response, and just moves it. :)
I'm very glad, by the way, that the existance of the "City, State" convention among Americans means that we avoid many disambiguation battles over their names.
Oh, good point. That's an area which is definitely in dynamic tension though - should names be as simple as possible (eg, taking just the name of the suburb or city or whatever, if there is no ambiguity), or as consistent as possible (*all* suburbs in a given country should be disambigged) etc.
I agree that one should read [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]] and its subpages, and think about it. (BTW, don't you hate all those TLAs you have to look up?) However, I think in this
Kind of, but they're easier to remember than getting the capitalisation right, and for some reason I find "Wikipedia:WikiProject" particularly difficult. Too bad we don't have consistent semishortcuts of the form "wp:countering systemic bias" (all lower case, wp: on the front). Or even an actual wikiproject: namespace.
case a disambiguation page is the correct thing to counter systemic bias; assuming what someone wants when they link or search to [[Georgia]] is a strong bias in itself, when both the state and the country are commonly referred to by different populations without qualifiers.
Perhaps what irks me is that there are 200 countries on the planet. 1 of them definitely refers to Georgia, the state, without qualifiers. Some small number may also do so. Then there's probably a large number of people who would qualify the state, or explain the country. And to people who hadn't heard of either, no one is going to assume that "My Aunt was born in Georgia" would be a US state. And at the other end, there must be several dozen (not necessarily English-speaking) for whom Georgia is definitely a country and nothing else.
I understand the comments about populations, economics etc, but I'm not sure it's totally relevant. Hopefully I'll come up with some good counter examples or something.
Lastly...is there any chance we could place hit counters on Georgia (country) and Georgia (state) just for the amusement factor? Even if we had to do it the 1997 way with little digits ticking over? Actually ideally what you want is the number of clicks on the Georgia (country) link out of [[Georgia]], and the same for the state. Then you're counting the number of people who hit Wikipedia on the disambig page, then tell you what they were really looking for.
Steve
On 4/11/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The very fact that there is disagreement among sensible contributors says that neither page should be primary.
There, I disagree. If the sensible contributors are not representative of whatever they should be reperesentative of, then their disagreement isn't useful.
Really, the most NPOV solution for article naming is to NEVER allow an article to occupy the primary name when there is any disambiguation needed at all. Placing one article above the others is bias.
However, it's impractical. In many cases, where people link to [[whatever]] or search for the term, it's incredibly highly likely that they mean only one of the options. In a sense, placing an article, rather than a disambiguation page, at the primary topic is a user-friendliness hack which challenges NPOV but is tolerated in the 'easy cases'.
It's my (current) belief that any disagreement that takes a name out of the 'easy cases' category should mean that no article gets the primary topic name.
Therefore, the question of whether those arguing are representative or not (and of whom) is irrelevant - the fact that non-nutcases consider it arguable at all puts it out of the 'easy cases' category.
Hmmm...well I haven't had much experience determining such things for big important pages like these, but my experience with smaller ones has mostly been that one person makes a sensible argument, doesn't get much response, and just moves it. :)
True. "Without strong disagreement" possibly works better.
Perhaps what irks me is that there are 200 countries on the planet. 1 of them definitely refers to Georgia, the state, without qualifiers. Some small number may also do so. Then there's probably a large number of people who would qualify the state, or explain the country. And to people who hadn't heard of either, no one is going to assume that "My Aunt was born in Georgia" would be a US state. And at the other end, there must be several dozen (not necessarily English-speaking) for whom Georgia is definitely a country and nothing else.
Georgia has only been independent for fifteen years; prior to that, in the modern era, it was of the same status as the US state, as a subdivision of a larger nation. I suspect prior to 1991, people neither from North America nor central/eastern Europe would have struggled to locate either place, or decide which was meant.
Since then, Georgia's independence means that the nation has a little more prominence, of course.
-Matt
On Apr 11, 2006, at 1:11 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I understand the comments about populations, economics etc, but I'm not sure it's totally relevant. Hopefully I'll come up with some good counter examples or something.
Interestingly, this is the same way I feel about your comments about sovereignty. Sovereignty is a political fiction--population is a reality.
On 4/12/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Interestingly, this is the same way I feel about your comments about sovereignty. Sovereignty is a political fiction--population is a reality.
A very encyclopaedic kind of political fiction.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/12/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Interestingly, this is the same way I feel about your comments about sovereignty. Sovereignty is a political fiction--population is a reality.
A very encyclopaedic kind of political fiction.
There's not a big distance between political fiction and political friction.
Ec
On Apr 11, 2006, at 3:00 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I did not raise this issue to bash Americans. Nor would I have a complaint if a state in the US were disambig'ed with a terristory in Pakistan. But for a mere state in the US to be considered somehow "equal" in importance, interest, searchability as a *country* just seems wrong. I'm really having trouble putting into words exactly why I feel that way, so I'll leave it for a bit and come back to it.
Current political status is really somewhat of an irrelevant topic. What about 20 years ago, when Georgia was simply part of the USSR? Georgia wasn't "a country" then, but it was largely the same place.
Here's the objective metrics:
Total GDP, Per-Capita GDP, Population, Foreign Trade, Land Area, No. of Wiki-Links: The US State Sovereignty, membership in int. organizations: The Nation
Now, this Wikipedia is written in English. (Arguments about African customers are irrelevant, as organizational style will change in a translation to an African language). There are 8 million people in Georgia (the state), almost all of whom speak English. There are 300 million people in the United States, likewise. Georgia (the country) is not an English-speaking country.
There are 380 million people who speak English as a first language. Some 79% of English-speakers are thus Americans. Now, assuming that British, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, et. al. are all more interested in the country than the state, they only make up some 21% of the English-speaking population. You're asking to inconvenience 4/5 of the potential user base for en. out of the belief that sovereignty and membership in international organizations not only outweigh all other considerations, but overwhelm it so much that the default page should not be a disambiguation page.
That's anti-Americanism.
On 4/11/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Current political status is really somewhat of an irrelevant topic. What about 20 years ago, when Georgia was simply part of the USSR? Georgia wasn't "a country" then, but it was largely the same place.
Here's the objective metrics:
Total GDP, Per-Capita GDP, Population, Foreign Trade, Land Area, No. of Wiki-Links: The US State Sovereignty, membership in int. organizations: The Nation
Now, this Wikipedia is written in English. (Arguments about African customers are irrelevant, as organizational style will change in a translation to an African language). There are 8 million people in Georgia (the state), almost all of whom speak English. There are 300 million people in the United States, likewise. Georgia (the country) is not an English-speaking country.
There are 380 million people who speak English as a first language. Some 79% of English-speakers are thus Americans. Now, assuming that British, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, et. al. are all more interested in the country than the state, they only make up some 21% of the English-speaking population. You're asking to inconvenience 4/5 of the potential user base for en. out of the belief that sovereignty and membership in international organizations not only outweigh all other considerations, but overwhelm it so much that the default page should not be a disambiguation page.
That's anti-Americanism.
And why, exactly, do only first-language English speakers "count"? What about the 1 billion+ second/third/etc. English language speakers? I remember reading somewhere that there are more English speakers in China than in the US.... and 300m over 1.3b is a lot less that 4/5ths.
On Apr 11, 2006, at 11:52 AM, Mikkerpikker wrote:
And why, exactly, do only first-language English speakers "count"? What about the 1 billion+ second/third/etc. English language speakers?
They will presumably read Wikipedia in their first language. It's rather imperialist of us to presume that they should read the English language Wikipedia just because it's difficult for us to do translations--more imperialist, I dare say, than having [[Georgia]] as a disambiguation page.
On 4/11/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Now, this Wikipedia is written in English. (Arguments about African customers are irrelevant, as organizational style will change in a translation to an African language). There are 8 million people in Georgia (the state), almost all of whom speak English. There are 300 million people in the United States, likewise. Georgia (the country) is not an English-speaking country.
And not to get on Georgia (the country's) bad side, but the state of Georgia actually has almost twice as many people living in it as the country does.
Which means that if someone says "My grandmother was born in Georgia", in English, and without any other context, you probably are correct in assuming they mean the U.S. state and not the country, just based on the numbers alone.
If one does a Google search for "Georgia", it is not until one finds the CIA World Factbook page, the seventh down on the page, that one sees anything about the country. It is not until the fourth page of results that one finds another page relating to the country -- the Wikipedia article on it. I know Google is not the most reliable indicator for these sorts of things, but it seems pretty clear what the English term most often refers to on these here internets.
FF
G'day Fastfission,
And not to get on Georgia (the country's) bad side, but the state of Georgia actually has almost twice as many people living in it as the country does.
Which means that if someone says "My grandmother was born in Georgia", in English, and without any other context, you probably are correct in assuming they mean the U.S. state and not the country, just based on the numbers alone.
Err ... maybe in America (I have noticed Americans don't seem to see the need to specify nationality, presumably because anyone important is from the USA).
If an Australian said "my grandmother was born in Georgia", they would usually mean the country. Otherwise, they'd say "my grandmother was born in Georgia ... you know, in America".
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Fastfission,
And not to get on Georgia (the country's) bad side, but the state of Georgia actually has almost twice as many people living in it as the country does.
Which means that if someone says "My grandmother was born in Georgia", in English, and without any other context, you probably are correct in assuming they mean the U.S. state and not the country, just based on the numbers alone.
Err ... maybe in America (I have noticed Americans don't seem to see the need to specify nationality, presumably because anyone important is from the USA).
If an Australian said "my grandmother was born in Georgia", they would usually mean the country. Otherwise, they'd say "my grandmother was born in Georgia ... you know, in America".
Yeah, wot he said.
On 4/11/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Err ... maybe in America (I have noticed Americans don't seem to see the need to specify nationality, presumably because anyone important is from the USA).
If an Australian said "my grandmother was born in Georgia", they would usually mean the country. Otherwise, they'd say "my grandmother was born in Georgia ... you know, in America".
I'm just saying in terms of the likelihood of somebody speaking English who said they were born in "Georgia". The odds are just statistically higher that somebody saying that, knowing nothing else about the context in which it was said, were born in the US state than in the Eastern European country. I of course don't mean that to be much of a convincing argument, but it was something which occurred to me in response to an earlier comment.
FF
On 4/12/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just saying in terms of the likelihood of somebody speaking English who said they were born in "Georgia". The odds are just statistically higher that somebody saying that, knowing nothing else about the context in which it was said, were born in the US state than in the Eastern European country. I of course don't mean that to be much of a convincing argument, but it was something which occurred to me in response to an earlier comment.
You actually just accidentally distorted the argument (originally, the person born in Georgia wasn't necessarily an English speaker), but it's not too important. This discussion convinces me that slight differences in how we define the goals of this project, its biases, how we measure masses of people, etc, can lead to significant differences in outcome.
Imagine, for example that instead of a 60-60 on the poll, the result had been 40-80. Or, it had been advertised on other Wikipedias (as if it mattered that much). Or something.
Steve
On 4/12/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Imagine, for example that instead of a 60-60 on the poll, the result had been 40-80. Or, it had been advertised on other Wikipedias (as if it mattered that much). Or something.
Which is why I believe my personal policy of "if there's any controversy at all, make the primary name a disambiguation page" is the correct one. Otherwise, we are choosing a bias to agree with; we're telling one bunch of people "Your bias that your one is the more important is correct" and the other bunch of people "Your bias that your one is the more important is WRONG". I think that's a poor message to be sending and goes against the Neutral Point of View policy.
There are all kinds of ways that article names can convey a bias, but this is one that we're better off avoiding. And I think quoting the NPOV principle in these cases is the way to go, and to emphasise that putting all articles at an equal footing is NOT saying they're equal: it's saying that Wikipedia does not, as editorial policy, take sides on that dispute.
-Matt
On 4/12/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
If one does a Google search for "Georgia", it is not until one finds the CIA World Factbook page, the seventh down on the page, that one sees anything about the country. It is not until the fourth page of results that one finds another page relating to the country -- the Wikipedia article on it. I know Google is not the most reliable indicator for these sorts of things, but it seems pretty clear what the English term most often refers to on these here internets.
I don't suppose you were using the American Google by any chance were you? :)
Steve
At 12:00 +0200 11/4/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/11/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this IS english-speaker-centric, but the very fact of writing an encylopedia in English is already deciding to do that.
Thank you. This is a beautiful way of expressing something I've been thinking about for some while.
Can you elaborate? Perhaps we should decide if we really want this bias, or not? [[WP:CSB]] thinks we don't.
Question: To use Jimbo's well-worn poor African once again, what does he expect? Georgia the country, or Georgia the state? Does he care that most Wikipedians are American, British, Canadian, etc? Should he just grateful for whatever information he can get, regardless of whose biases, interests and prejudices it reflects? Should he not be concerned if, when he looks up Zaire, he comes up with a suburb in Arizona?
I did not raise this issue to bash Americans. Nor would I have a complaint if a state in the US were disambig'ed with a terristory in Pakistan. But for a mere state in the US to be considered somehow "equal" in importance, interest, searchability as a *country* just seems wrong. I'm really having trouble putting into words exactly why I feel that way, so I'll leave it for a bit and come back to it.
[[WP:CSB]] really is worth a read.
Steve
And also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_%28disambiguation%29
:-)
G'day Gordon,
At 12:00 +0200 11/4/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
[[WP:CSB]] really is worth a read.
And also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_%28disambiguation%29
:-)
"Boring Brown Chocolate, an acronym used in a recent Strong Bad Email."
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Conrad,
Regardless of who is and is not being 'arrogant' here it seems clear that neither 'Georgia' is so overwhelmingly more likely to be searched for than the other that it can be assumed to be the intended destination in a high majority of cases... ergo going to a disambig page is the logical course.
Did we really need to go out of our way to 'bash the Americans' again?
Just ask yourself: if Georgia (US state) was not, in fact, a US state, but an Australian state, or a British county, or ... whatever ... would we have had all those arguments? I suspect it would indeed have been "obvious beyond words" if the grand ol' US of A wasn't involved.
If the Americans had done the right thing and called it New Georgia to follow the pattern that was started with Hampshire, York and Jersey we wouldn't be having this problem. Nobody complains about the name South Georgia except perhaps the Argentinians.
The other alternative might be the Greek solution of using FSRG (Former Soviet Republic of Gerogia). :-)
Ec
On 4/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If the Americans had done the right thing and called it New Georgia to follow the pattern that was started with Hampshire, York and Jersey we wouldn't be having this problem. Nobody complains about the name South Georgia except perhaps the Argentinians.
The other alternative might be the Greek solution of using FSRG (Former Soviet Republic of Gerogia). :-)
Actually, on reading [[Georgia (country)]], one learns that the Georgian name for their own nation in their own language is not Georgia at all but something quite unrelated. Clearly the solution is to place the article at [[Sak'art'velo]] and move the issue to a /different/ flamewar.
;)
-Matt
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, on reading [[Georgia (country)]], one learns that the Georgian name for their own nation in their own language is not Georgia at all but something quite unrelated. Clearly the solution is to place the article at [[Sak'art'velo]] and move the issue to a /different/ flamewar.
;)
-Matt
That's a really bad idea. MOST countries call themselves something else in their own language. Germany is Deutschland, Spain is Espana, Italy is Italia, etc. etc. etc. The WP naming convention is (and should be) that we call countries (and languages and people etc.) by their English name.
And I donnu, but the state of Georgia doesn't have a vote at the UN General Assembly, nor is it a member of the WTO, nor is it sovereign, nor is it... My personal view is Georgia (country) should be the main article and that we're seeing some clear US-centrism in elevating some random sub-national entity to the level of a sovereign state.
On 4/11/06, Mikkerpikker mikkerpikker@gmail.com wrote:
That's a really bad idea.
Um, the smiley was intended to indicate that the foregoing was humor and not a serious proposal.
-Matt
On 4/11/06, Mikkerpikker mikkerpikker@gmail.com wrote:
And I donnu, but the state of Georgia doesn't have a vote at the UN General Assembly, nor is it a member of the WTO, nor is it sovereign, nor is it... My personal view is Georgia (country) should be the main article and that we're seeing some clear US-centrism in elevating some random sub-national entity to the level of a sovereign state.
Once again, you are assuming that Wikipedia's naming convention should be by some taxonomic scheme of importance.
That isn't how it works.
We make the primary name a disambiguation page if one use of a name does not completely overwhelm the other uses of the name. In the case of Georgia, neither does - plenty of people will say 'Georgia' and mean the nation, and plenty more will say 'Georgia' and mean the state.
-Matt
On 4/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
We make the primary name a disambiguation page if one use of a name does not completely overwhelm the other uses of the name. In the case of Georgia, neither does - plenty of people will say 'Georgia' and mean the nation, and plenty more will say 'Georgia' and mean the state.
Hmm, depends which people, doesn't it.
I do note with interest from the naming conventions guideline "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists."
So I'm glad that what I was saying about readers wasn't totally off the mark.
Also, the established principle is apparently: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
(which doesn't really add much to this debate, other than to show how incredibly useful that [[template:policy in a nutshell]] is)
Steve
At 10:56 -0700 11/4/06, Matt Brown wrote:
On 4/11/06, Mikkerpikker mikkerpikker@gmail.com wrote:
And I donnu, but the state of Georgia doesn't have a vote at the UN General Assembly, nor is it a member of the WTO, nor is it sovereign, nor is it... My personal view is Georgia (country) should be the main article and that we're seeing some clear US-centrism in elevating some random sub-national entity to the level of a sovereign state.
Once again, you are assuming that Wikipedia's naming convention should be by some taxonomic scheme of importance.
That isn't how it works.
We make the primary name a disambiguation page if one use of a name does not completely overwhelm the other uses of the name. In the case of Georgia, neither does - plenty of people will say 'Georgia' and mean the nation, and plenty more will say 'Georgia' and mean the state.
-Matt
I made that suggestion is recent communication to this august email group. My idea is that there is never a primary page. All edits must check for the correct person, place, etc.
Gordo
On Apr 11, 2006, at 10:02 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If the Americans had done the right thing and called it New Georgia to follow the pattern that was started with Hampshire, York and Jersey we wouldn't be having this problem. Nobody complains about the name South Georgia except perhaps the Argentinians.
Georgia wasn't named after the country of Georgia, it was named after King George II.
On 11/04/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Apr 11, 2006, at 10:02 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If the Americans had done the right thing and called it New Georgia to follow the pattern that was started with Hampshire, York and Jersey we wouldn't be having this problem. Nobody complains about the name South Georgia except perhaps the Argentinians.
Georgia wasn't named after the country of Georgia, it was named after King George II.
Then again, New York wasn't named after the city, it was named after the person. (Admittedly, this one is a relatively unusual use of the "New" prefix)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
G'day Phil,
On Apr 11, 2006, at 10:02 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If the Americans had done the right thing and called it New Georgia to follow the pattern that was started with Hampshire, York and Jersey we wouldn't be having this problem. Nobody complains about the name South Georgia except perhaps the Argentinians.
Georgia wasn't named after the country of Georgia, it was named after King George II.
George II ... that's the one who *isn't* The British Tyrant, right?
(Congratulations on recognising additional Georges, old boy.)
On Apr 11, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
Georgia wasn't named after the country of Georgia, it was named after King George II.
George II ... that's the one who *isn't* The British Tyrant, right?
Right. George III was the tyrant :)
Philip Welch wrote:
On Apr 11, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
Georgia wasn't named after the country of Georgia, it was named after King George II.
George II ... that's the one who *isn't* The British Tyrant, right?
Right. George III was the tyrant :)
Hmmm. George I ... Washington George II ... Bush Sr. George III ... Bush Jr. ;-)
Ec
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Just came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgia . It is obvious beyond words to me that [[Georgia]] should be the country, and the US state should be at something like [[Georgia (US State)]]. However, an ongoing poll evenly ties between that, and keeping Georgia is a disambiguation page.
I find this sad. :(
[[Macedonia]]
Should it point to the Greek administrative region, the modern country, the ancient kingdom, or the geographic region?
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
On 11/04/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Just came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgia . It is obvious beyond words to me that [[Georgia]] should be the country, and the US state should be at something like [[Georgia (US State)]]. However, an ongoing poll evenly ties between that, and keeping Georgia is a disambiguation page.
I find this sad. :(
[[Macedonia]]
Should it point to the Greek administrative region, the modern country, the ancient kingdom, or the geographic region?
Redirect to [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]]?
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 4/11/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
[[Macedonia]]
Should it point to the Greek administrative region, the modern country, the ancient kingdom, or the geographic region?
None of the above, by my reasoning, but to a disambiguation page.
(goes to check)
Which it currently does.
-Matt
On 4/11/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
[[Macedonia]]
Should it point to the Greek administrative region, the modern country, the ancient kingdom, or the geographic region?
You were probably asking me. I answer: The country.
Steve
On 4/11/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
[[Macedonia]]
Should it point to the Greek administrative region, the modern country, the ancient kingdom, or the geographic region?
You were probably asking me. I answer: The country.
And not the kingdom that at one time controlled the entire civilized world?
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
G'day Mark,
On 4/11/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/11/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
[[Macedonia]]
Should it point to the Greek administrative region, the modern country, the ancient kingdom, or the geographic region?
You were probably asking me. I answer: The country.
And not the kingdom that at one time controlled the entire civilized world?
[[Rome]].
C'mon.
On Apr 11, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
[[Macedonia]]
Should it point to the Greek administrative region, the modern country, the ancient kingdom, or the geographic region?
You were probably asking me. I answer: The country.
And not the kingdom that at one time controlled the entire civilized world?
[[Rome]].
C'mon.
[[Alexander the Great]].
C'mon.
Philip Welch wrote:
On Apr 11, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
[[Macedonia]]
Should it point to the Greek administrative region, the modern country, the ancient kingdom, or the geographic region?
You were probably asking me. I answer: The country.
And not the kingdom that at one time controlled the entire civilized world?
[[Rome]].
C'mon.
[[Alexander the Great]].
C'mon.
[[Lleyton Hewitt]].
C'mon!
On 4/12/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
And not the kingdom that at one time controlled the entire civilized world?
I would have a preference for currently existing objects/countries/people taking precedence. But only a preference. And it could certainly be because where I come from, Macedonia the country is fairly frequently in the news...
Steve
At 17:20 +0200 10/4/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi all, Just came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgia . It is obvious beyond words to me that [[Georgia]] should be the country, and the US state should be at something like [[Georgia (US State)]]. However, an ongoing poll evenly ties between that, and keeping Georgia is a disambiguation page.
I find this sad. :(
Steve
Indeed. Meanwhile, over on the Commons...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Delist...
Delisting candidates that were voted to "Featured Picture" status by voting again?
Gordo