On 19/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Which is why [[Georgia]] is a disambig, not the country - because of a straw poll where, for the most part, Americans voted "disambig" and non-Americans voted "country". - d.

On 5/19/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: If I'm correct in guessing that "in favor of" means "strict majority, but not supermajority or anywhere near rough consensus", closing as "no consensus" probably makes the most sense. -Matt

On 19/05/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: All the more reason to have a bizarre status quo...

On 20/05/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote: Which is an argument for [[Georgia]] being the state with a disambig template at the top...

On 5/20/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: Watch out for that argument - I'm sure at one point most people looking for [[Socrates]] were looking for [[Sócrates]] the Brazilian footballer rather than Socrates the ancient Greek philosopher. Was going to make a point about [[Teresa May]] and [[Theresa May]] but they have one letter different. -- Sam Blacketer London E15

On 5/21/07, Christopher Hagar <cmhagar(a)gmail.com> wrote: When did Brazil stop being part of the Americas?

On 5/20/07, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: Based on way more inward links to [[Georgia]] wanting the state than the country. Based on the population, GDP, and every other measure you care to name putting Georgia-the-state over Georgia-the-country. There's also the facts that (a) Georgia-the-state is significantly older than Georgia-the-country, and (b) Georgia-the-country isn't even named that in the country's official language. The fact is that here we have two things named the same, both of which are fairly well known. That's what disambiguation pages are for. -Matt

Technically speaking, modern Georgia has only existed since the fall of the Soviet Union (or there abouts), which is presumably what Matt was referring to. The article does, however, include plenty of information about pre-Soviet Georgia, so that argument doesn't really hold water. Were the article specifically about modern Georgia, he would have a point. The state is bigger in terms of population and economy, although (according to Wikipedia) it is slightly smaller in terms of area, which I would consider a "measure [I] care to name". I really don't think there is a better solution than to have a disambig page. There are two major meanings to the word, so we list them and let the reader choose. It works.

G'day Matt, <snip/> "This is ludicrous" is the mailing list (née USENET) way of saying "I disagree with this". <snip/> Suppose Federation had occured slightly earlier, such that Queensland (which we'll be calling "Germany" for this experiment) had existed as an Australian State for longer than Germany has as Germany. How many Australians would be demanding that Germany the country should not be at [[Germany]], because a disambig (at least) or even the state belongs there? <snip/> -- Mark Gallagher "'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten in the leg by a personal friend." - P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/

Mark Gallagher wrote: Sounds like the kind of chauvinistic demands that the Greeks put on Macedonia. Ec

K P wrote: I'm thinking "stunned" is more accurate for myself. -kc-

On 5/21/07, K P &lt;kpbotany(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Read the article and find out, KP. It should be obvious from context that I do not mean that the land has been unoccupied or that there is no history there. It is, however, the case that the modern independent state has only existed since the division of the Soviet Union. Prior to that, it was an administrative division of the USSR with similar status to the state of Georgia within the United States; approximately the same area was briefly independent 1918-1921 after the collapse of the Russian Empire. Thus, prior to 1991, the area was (except for three years) a division of a larger nation during the previous 250 years or so, and thus of similar status to the Georgia in the US. -Matt

On 5/21/07, K P &lt;kpbotany(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Note that I am not an American. In terms of the kind of rough status implicit in any idea of natural hierarchy (which you appear to support), they were both subdivisions of a larger state, with some internal autonomy but no ability to act as a nation in international affairs. In detail, of course, both situations were very different, based on the character of the two nations and their political structure. I disagree when it comes to Wikipedia disambiguation between two well-known entities. I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence; I can parse it to mean any of several different solutions. My apologies for the misunderstanding. When it comes to writing for our readers, the correct solution where there are two well-known claimants to the same name is to make the bare name a disambiguation between them. There's no overwhelmingly right choice that most of our readers will be looking for. For our writers, making the plain name a disambiguation is the best service in this kind of case as well. If someone links to [[Georgia]], they could mean either the nation or the state. Since no mainspace page should link to the disambiguation save the disambiguated pages themselves, this automatically marks them as needing human intervention to disambiguate the link. If one of the alternatives is at the bare name, some of the internal links will be correct, some incorrect, and there is no sure way to tell them apart. And from the point of which of the three choices will cause the least disruption, it is likely to be equal disambiguation. Putting one above the other in a case like this is, I suspect, likely to cause a greater degree of anger among the "wronged" and cause more internal strife than does the low-level discord created by equal disambiguation. -Matt

On 5/21/07, Zoney &lt;zoney.ie(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: You are forgetting the second element of page rank. The context of the links. How many of those incomeing links come from articles of significance (ie articles that have lots of links to them) and how important are those links within the article (harder to come up with an automatic check for this although there a few ways a start could be made). -- geni

On 5/21/07, Ken Arromdee &lt;arromdee(a)rahul.net&gt; wrote: I'm not at all sure we consistently apply the rationale of whatever people are most looking for is what we serve. Steve

Part of the issue is a tendency to consider recent things more important in general, not directly linked to American importance. Although, nuclear weapons and worldwide military power and communication do skew traditional notions of importance. The United States is, after all, more important to the Chinese than the Roman Empire ever was. On 5/19/07, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote:

On 5/19/07, Christopher Hagar &lt;cmhagar(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: The problem is also speaking of the past in the present tense. The world was, gasp, a different world in 1914 than it is in 2007. I'm just aghast at the lack of an historical perspective that comes across in so many Wikipedia articles. When I see statements like the above about all American prime minsters being more famous than Polish ones it really makes me wonder about the type of thinking that even went into the statement--the world of international relations does not exist in a vacuum, and Poland is not Monaco. Not even close. KP