Talk:List of leaders of Georgia (country)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warning: Default sort key "Leaders of Georgia, List Of" overrides earlier default sort key "leaders of Georgia".

Untitled[edit]

There is something wrong with the wiki markup in the last table, producing things like 'style="background:#004a99; color:white;"| 4' in the visible text. Bever (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 July 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus

This specific discussion ended up quite contentious. It seems to be a part of a larger perennial debate for topics involving "Georgia". Other recent discussions have closed keeping a disambiguation page. 1, 2

A difference here and central point of disagreement was the word "leader" especially in the context of "Georgia", and whether this yields a primary topic.

The best arguments in favor a primary topic were around real world usage. However, I didn't see sufficient evidence provided in this discussion to satisfy WP:PT1. Ultimately there was not a clear consensus that a primary topic exists, which means we cannot treat this article as a primary topic.

The numerical advantage lies with supports, with a trend in that direction. However I cannot find consensus to move with lack of consensus on a primary topic. Some in opposition explicitly suggested converting the target page to a disambiguation but that's tied up in the primary topic discussion, and the opposition's arguments don't provide enough additional policy weight to override the numerical advantage, thus no consensus formed. (non-admin closure) —siroχo 11:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of leaders of Georgia (country) → List of leaders of Georgia – Parenthetical disambiguation is inappropriate here, as the base name redirects here, signifying this article as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and that it should be moved to the base name per WP:MISPLACED. A WP:HATNOTE may be added to List of governors of Georgia (which itself is disambiguated with a similar topic related to country via a hatnote, rather than a parenthetical qualifier) for users seeking the leaders of the U.S. state; thus employing WP:NATURAL disambiguation and hatnotes rather than the less favorable parenthethical disambiguation (see WP:NCDAB). Mdewman6 (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Previous closure

The result of the move request was: Moved. Opposition has the numbers, but no basis in policy. Opposers claim ambiguity, but fail to identify the article with the topic to which the allegedly ambiguous title may refer, because there isn’t one. There is no basis in policy or convention to disambiguate with topics for articles that do not exist. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 07:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close Correction/clarification: It has been noted on my talk page that an article with an ambiguous topic was identified in the discussion: List of governors of Georgia. Indeed, the nom noted that themselves, and addressed it by also noting that to the extent it may be ambiguous, it’s already addressed by PRIMARYTOPIC, which was established by the PRIMARYREDIRECT link from the basename to this article, creating the MISPLACED situation motivating this proposal. I stand by my decision because the only policy justification to move this article back to the parenthetically disambiguated one depends on claiming ambiguity with List of governors of Georgia and that this article’s topic is not the PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. All but one of the opposed listed simply ambiguity as their basis. No one opposed even addressed the PRIMARYTOPIC or MISPLACED policy-based reasons for moving. If anyone feels strongly that the article should be at the parenthetically disambiguated title, I suggest they make a policy-based proposal accordingly. —В²C ☎ 14:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Post-MR addition WP:MALPLACED is about disambiguation pages; WP:MISPLACED is about articles. As MISPLACED describes, primary redirects are certainly allowed, but the base names must be different. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they're not always interchangeable, does that not point to there being a primary topic? Mdewman6 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. I should've simply said "not interchangeable". You can call almost any governor a leader, but you're not going to call every leader a governor. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I want is for this to follow article title policy, and right now, it has a parenthetical qualifier when there is no other page to disambiguate it with. It does not make sense to send everyone to a disambiguation page because a minority of them might actually be seeking a list of governors of the state, but that is the option implicitly being favored if there is no consensus for the proposed move. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they were interchangeable, that would be a reason to have a disambiguation page and parenethetical qualifiers, because there is no way to predict which topic a user seeks when using the term. By them not being interchangeable, it indicates, at least to some extent, they signify separate topics. In such cases they are naturally disambiguated, and alternative meanings may be addressed in a hatnote. Parenthetical disambigation is not the only form of disambiguation, in fact, it is used only when other disambiguation techniques don't make sense or don't work. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're simply not understanding. Leader is interchangeable for governor; governor is not necessarily interchangeable for leader. A governor can almost always be considered a leader; a leader can't always be considered a governor. The "Governor of Georgia" is clearly referring to the governor of the state and not a present or historic leader of the country. The present day or historic leaders of either country could be called "leaders of Georgia" and thus the proposed title is ambiguous. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the non-existence of similar redirects referencing U.S. states is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. OTHERSTUFF arguments are based on the recognition that the "other stuff" may or may not exist for invalid reasons ("you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article"). For my argument to be an WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, you'd have to argue those other similar redirects should exist. Are you suggesting all those redirects are red links because someone deleted them? Of course not. Obviously they don't exist because there is no reasona for them to exist, the exact same reason this title, undisambiguated, has only one obvious topic, a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is unrelated to the U.S. state of Georgia. You can oppose all you want; but you have no policy basis to do so, and any good closer will (un)weight your !vote accordingly. --В²C ☎ 19:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except the policy base is WP:PRECISE. The move is less precise, that's a fact. You may think that it's still sufficiently precise, and that's fine. I simply disagree. The argument that redirects don't exist is completely moot as that is not a requirement, redirects are costly. As other users have pointed out, List of football clubs in Georgia exists as a dab page, even though List of football clubs in Georgia (state) doesn't exist.
You can disagree with me (and the other oppose !votes) as much as you like. But saying they're not based in policy is plain wrong. If that were the case, your close would've been endorsed, which it clearly was not. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRECISE says to NOT disambiguate titles like this one. First, it says “titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that”. Granted we could disagree on whether this title (undisambiguated) unambiguously defines the topical scope of the article, but, again, I think that the fact that we don’t bother with “Leaders of X” for any U.S. State X establishes that it’s not ambiguous with Governors of Georgia, or anything else. Furthermore, even if you genuinely believe it’s ambiguous, PT explicitly states that titles with primary topics are exceptions: “Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, …”. No one has even attempted to argue that this topic is not primary for this title, and rightfully so. Why you just ignore it is beyond me. At any rate, neither PRECISE nor any other policy supports disambiguating the title of this article; there is no policy basis for disambiguating it. —В²C ☎ 22:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:PTOPIC between Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). Both Georgias have leaders. Therefore, I don't see reason to believe that either Georgia could be considered the primary topic for "(list of) leader(s) of Georgia".
And again with the redirect thing. Redirects are not required, see the List of football clubs in Georgia for example. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t seem to understand that primary topics are determined not by what you see, or by breaking down the title to see whether terms used in it are primary, but by how likely a given topic is to be sought with the title in question. So, for this case we need to consider someone searching with List of leaders of Georgia and how likely they are to be searching for this article vs List of governors of Georgia. That’s why the dearth of “List of leaders of X” titles or links for any U.S. state X is relevant here: it tells us that we don’t expect anyone to be searching for the list of governors of a U.S. state with such a phrase. In other words, the likelihood that someone searching with List of leaders of Georgia is looking for a list of leaders of the country Georgia is practically infinitely higher than the likelihood they’re looking for a list of governors of the U.S. state of Georgia. But that likelihood indisputably meets the PT hurdle which is far lower than “practically infinitely higher”: “much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined”. Come on. Be reasonable. —В²C ☎ 23:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unreasonable to disagree with you, which is all you're saying. I don't believe this is the primary topic, in my view the proposed move fails WP:PRECISE (a policy). You've brought up the lack of similar redirects (which I cannot stress enough are not required) and the primary topic argument countless times, here and in the MR, borderline WP:BLUDGEONing at this point. This is going to be the last reply I'll give, because you're clearly not going to respect any viewpoint other than your own. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I concede the redirects are not required. Of course. But that’s irrelevant to why their absence is relevant, which I won’t repeat, but you’re ignoring. I also won’t repeat explaining why the undisambiguated title doesn’t fail PRECISE, but will point out you are also simply ignoring the reason. It’s one thing to disagree and explain why. It’s quite another to just disagree without even addressing the arguments that refute your position, and then have the gall to attempt to deflect from reasoning with ad hominem attacks on the other party with accusations of BLUDGEONing. —В²C ☎ 04:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my tone was a bit bitey, that's my bad. But I've addressed your arguments in multiple ways and multiple places. I believe that this fails WP:PRECISE because it is ambiguous with List of governors of Georgia. Because there is no primary topic between the two Georgias, I don't see a primary topic between leaders of the two. If that's not enough of a policy-based argument, I'm afraid I have nothing else to say. (And apparently I lied about the last reply being my last reply) estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every single article with a primary topic has a title that is ambiguous with the title of another article, so ambiguity alone cannot be sufficient reason to fail PRECISE. You’re again repeating your argument for why you don’t think the topic of this article is primary without even acknowledging, much less addressing my argument which refuted yours. I won’t repeat it, but will say you’re making up criteria to determine if this title is primary rather than going by the criteria specified at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That’s not policy-based reasoning, as I’ve said all along. It’s fantasy-based reasoning. —В²C ☎ 22:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there is not a primary topic for Georgia! Both have leaders per Huw so I don't see how there is a primary topic for the descriptive title. Again WP:SHORTFORM appears to support following the main article. The base title List of leaders of Georgia should become a DAB again per Huw. If you think the country is primary for Georgia then propose to move Georgia (country) to Georgia but we don't need to have the same debate for every descriptive title unless the descriptive title is at least relatively unambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is no PT for Georgia. Both places have leaders. So what? The criteria we’re supposed to use to determine whether there is a PT for any given title is to consider the context of someone searching with that as the search term, which in this case is “List of leaders of Georgia”. Don’t you agree that someone searching with that term is far more likely to be searching for this article than List of governors of Georgia? Is there any question that “List of leaders of X” for any U.S, state is such an unusual construct that we don’t have a single redirect of that form? It’s irrelevant that such redirects are not required. The point is they’re allowed but we don’t bother creating them because we don’t expect anyone to search with them. So why would they if X is the U.S. state of Georgia? They wouldn’t. This is not only a primary topic case, it’s about as extreme of a PT case as there can be, since the only alternative is practically guaranteed to never be sought with the search term in question. The indisputable fact that Georgia has no PT is not relevant here. All that matters is the relative likelihoods of the two articles being sought by someone searching with this title which is probably far more than 1000 to 1 in favor of this article over the list of governors. — В²C ☎ 03:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huw provided sources. Isn't it quite obvious that leader and governor is the same thing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether leader and governor are the same thing is irrelevant. All that is relevant is the likelihood someone searching with “List of leaders of Georgia” is seeking this article vs the list of governors. Given that “leaders” is so relatively rarely used to refer to a governor, the likelihood that this article is the one being sought with that search term is probably more than 1000x more likely than the list of governors. At any rate it easily meets the much lower PT “much more likely” threshold. It’s so unlikely that anyone will use such a search to find the list of governors that we don’t even provide a redirect for it for any state. —В²C ☎ 17:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Far from being quite obvious that leader and governor is the same thing, it's not even generally true. The Governor of New South Wales is not the Leader of New South Wales. That would be the Premier if anyone. Andrewa (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this but there is at least a stronger case for ambiguity here than the diplomatic mission or ambassador lists which have no plausible ties to the State.--65.93.194.183 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some ambiguity, yes, but the country seems the clear primary topic, such that a hatnote is right form of disambiguation here. The only alternative would be to create List of leaders of Georgia (U.S. state) as a redirect to List of governors of Georgia and then create a two-item dab page at List of leaders of Georgia, but that seems unnecessary and obtuse to me; these should be naturally disambiguated. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This title is potentially ambiguous as "leader" is pretty generic. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. increases ambiguity In ictu oculi (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a potentially ambiguous page move. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    List of leaders of Georgia (state) is not an impossible page or redirect. It's unlikely, but it's not impossible, and our readers are better served by keeping the title disambiguated. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Already redirects here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting per consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 July following a previous close of "moved" (see here for the original closing rationale). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is provided by the hatnote. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nom, post-MR The previous close was inappropriate and relisting was the correct outcome, but it is disturbing to me that so much controversy has arisen about the issue at hand. Quoting myself from the move review: While in my opinion "list of leaders of Georgia" could refer to another topic covered in Wikipedia, i.e. List of governors of Georgia (see WP:QUALIFIER), the fact that the article was at the base name from 2009 until 2022 when it was boldly moved to the page with the "(country)" qualifier but with the base name (improperly) left to redirect there until now, and that nobody has made a redirect at List of leaders of Georgia (U.S. state), or for any other state as pointed out by the closer, strongly suggests the country article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and that a hatnote and natural disambiguation are sufficient. As I noted above, what the opposers implicitly favor is for anyone typing list of leaders of Georgia to be brought to a disambiguation page, with the implication that it is not significantly more likely that users of this search term seek a list of leaders of the country rather than a list of governors of the U.S. state. This is of course subjective, but I find it difficult to conclude that a significant number of users are seeking a list of U.S. state governors (with those who are to be served by a hatnote, per WP:ONEOTHER), and I find it difficult to believe most opposers believe this either. Again as discussed ad nauseum at the MR, only pointing out that "leader" is ambiguous is inadequate and incomplete justification for opposing the requested move, as it does not address the WP:QUALIFIER question at issue here, which is whether the country list is the primary topic for the base name, or not. The status quo of the base name redirecting to the disambiguated title is inappropriate (see WP:MISPLACED) and is contrary to the claim that it is ambiguous (as anyone using the ambiguous base name will arrive at the country article), so those opposing the move should explain why there is not a primary topic in this case and state how the ambiguity should instead be addressed. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article isn't MISPLACED any more than Listed buildings in Killington, Cumbria not being at Listed buildings in Killington is. These rules don't generally apply to descriptive titles and Georgia is indeed a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't normal disambiguation apply to descriptive titles? I am unaware of any policy/guideline text that suggests we should treat descriptive titles differently. The best title, descriptive or otherwise, is chosen for an article per WP:CRITERIA, then if that title could apply additional topics covered in Wikipedia, we disambiguate per WP:QUALIFIER, but consider that there may be a primary topic. Of course, as suggested by WP:NATURAL, we could fold disambiguation into the descriptive titles to make them unambiguous, here using a title like List of leaders of the country of Georgia, but this seems cumbersome and unconcise. As for the listed buildings examples, as noted at MISPLACED, comma-separated qualifiers are typically added to place articles even when disambiguation is not strictly needed. Personally, in my view a strict reading of WP:AT (especially WP:QUALIFIER) and WP:DAB would indicate that the article should exist at Listed buildings in Killington because there are no other articles about listed buildings in other places listed at Killington, so disambiguation is not required there. But the point regarding MISPLACED here is that one cannot make the argument "list of leaders of Georgia" is ambiguous but also favor the status quo of keeping it as a redirect to the country article (and I recognize you are not one of them, as you favor a disambiguation page). Mdewman6 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mdewman6: "List of leaders of Georgia" is not an appropriate primary topic because it's unclear which of multiple subjects about which Wikipedia has articles the title refers to. Does it refer to presidents of the Caucasus nation? To governors of the American state? Users might reasonably guess either. I, for instance, am someone who — as it says in our recognizability criterion — is familiar with both subjects but not an expert in either, and I certainly wouldn't be able to tell you because there's simply not enough information present in the un-disambiguated title. Remember that a governor is a leader (as Wikipedia's own article about governors explicitly establishes within the first six words) just as a president or first secretary is a leader, and all may be referred to as such, as evidence shows; likewise Georgia may refer either to the nation or to the state, and neither has established primacy. Without some means of clarification, they're just too imprecise to pass muster.

In supporting the removal of the clarifier, you seem to hang your hat almost entirely on the fact that the base name has long been a primary redirect... but the fact that something hasn't been changed in the past is not evidence that it's wrong to change it now, so long as we agree there's good reason to do so. When a potentially inappropriate primary or primary redirect situation is identified, we consider it on its merits, and discuss how best to apply our good article title criteria. In this case removing the clarifier would seem to yield a title that fails (at minimum) to be adequately precise or recognizable. And just to be clear, we do not use hatnotes as tickets to freely bypass consideration of such criteria.

As for how the ambiguity should be addressed: just leave this article where it is and change the base name article to a DAB. Simple. List of football clubs in Georgia is a perfect example where we recently did exactly that. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and disambiguate the title. There are more "leaders" of both the North American entity and the Eurasian entity than just the heads of state. List of colonial governors of Georgia covers a period when the North American entity was not yet even a state. BD2412 T 20:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I personally would never look up "List of leaders of Georgia" when searching for governors of the state. However, that's just me. I think if this gets moved, another move discussion once navigation data becomes clear may be an option – I personally would expect the country to be the PTOPIC, but that may be because of my own biases and me knowing that the US state is led by governors. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine someone who doesn’t know U.S. states are led by governors. Why would such a person ever look up this article? I mean, by the time someone has enough interest in the state of Georgia to be interested in looking up a list of its leaders, how could they not know these leaders are governors and generally never referred to as “leaders“? —В²C ☎ 15:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but on the other hand, why would anyone use this terminology when referring to the country either? They'd say "presidents" or "prime ministers". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only point of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC determination by the criteria specified there is to consider the relative likelihoods of the two articles being sought by someone searching with the phrase, “list of leaders of Georgia”. I estimate it’s at least 1000 to 1 in favor of this article over the list of governors. But it only needs to meet the PT threshold of merely “much more likely”, which cannot be reasonably denied here. — В²C ☎ 19:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s not the singular point.
    A point is where on seeing the title you can recognise a known subject, or will be astonished, after following it, to find it unrelated. This point applies here. It is ambiguous, and needs disambiguating, and the threshold for this should be extremely low because the cost of disambiguating is zero, and the cost of astonishment of readers is not zero. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, WP:ASTONISH is part of an essay, not policy. Secondly, if anything was astonishing, it would be for WP to refer to “governors” of any state as “leaders” of that state. Anyway, none of anything you mentioned is referenced or even implied as part of primary topic criteria, or any policy. Only what I said is. Again, there is no policy basis for opposing this proposal. —В²C ☎ 05:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
B2C: If that were true I wouldn't expect many people to be surprised by the redirect or to find it odd or inappropriate — yet it's quite apparent that many do. Further, if someone is specifically searching for the vague leaders rather than presidents, governors, etc., I don't see how we can divine that as referring to one specific polity. I mean, if a user's intent is to find, say, a list of the presidents of the nation of Georgia, they can type "List of presidents of Georgia" and be correctly taken to the list of officeholders in our article about the office of the president of the nation of Georgia. Likewise, if they're looking for state governors, they can type "List of governors of Georgia" and go straight to the appropriate article. Leaders, though? That really just needs to be a DAB.
I see you also claim this: "If anything was astonishing, it would be for WP to refer to “governors” of any state as “leaders” of that state." Yet WP explicitly does exactly this, in the ledes of both our article about governors in general ("A governor is an administrative leader and head of a polity or political region") and our article about governors in the US ("As state leaders, governors advance and pursue new and revised policies..."). Governors are indeed leaders and may be referred to as such, as evidence shows, so that objection seems baseless. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cost of disambiguating, in the form of a disambiguation page, is not zero, when you consider that anyone seeking the content of this article must first go through the disambiguation page rather than reach this article directly, as they have been able to do for over a decade, whereas those users seeking the list of U.S. state governors are not harmed either way: they may just as easily reach the page they seek via a hatnote as they can via a link from the disambiguation page. Again, if it's just as likely a user wants a list of governors rather than a list of leaders of the country, then a disambiguation page makes sense, but this just isn't the case here. This is exactly what hatnotes are for, to serve a minority of users seeking a similarly titled subject who have reached the wrong page. Parenthetical disambiguators and disambiguation pages are not the only form of disambiguation. And parenthetical disambiguation is not how to address astonishment; again, this is what hatnotes are for. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“when you consider that anyone seeking the content of this article must first go through the disambiguation page” is false. I have to make wild guesses at how you came to think this, but on simple logic it is simply false.
RE Hatnotes. In contrast, hatnotes are expensive space wasting time wasting de-focusing elements to the reader. They sit in the prime real estate of the article, and are intended for readers who didn’t want the article, and have no value for readers who did want the article. If there were value in mentioning the other article, mention would be woven into the lede and a hatnote would not be used.
A general observation: editors obsessed with primary topic appear to be blinkered to the purpose of the project (the readers) and they employ tortured logic to avoid consideration of the reader. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That last statement is very unfair. We're all here for the readers, even when we disagree how best to serve the readers. It is reasonable to argue that when a majority of readers searching for a specific string are forced to land on a dab page using that title instead of the article they want and expect, that is a disservice to those readers. Now, in this particular case, almost no one is landing on "List of leaders of Georgia" (the redirect averaged zero hits per day before this RM/MR[2]), but those few readers who do land on it are best served by getting straight to the article they almost certainly want. Station1 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“those few readers who do land on it are best served by getting straight to the article they almost certainly want”
At the cost of disrupting the prime real estate of the target article, due to almost not being all?
If there is disagreement over whether there’s a PrimaryTopic, that should be enough to mean there is no PrimaryTopic. Forcing a PrimaryTopic doesn’t serve any reader. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the idea of a primary topic. We disrupt the "prime real estate" of Winston Churchill with a hatnote because most readers want to read about the PM but a relative handful want to read about the novelist. Station1 (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Just considering the four WC people: 95% of readers are inconvenienced by hatnotes to things they don’t want, and 5% were suckered into loading the wrong article due to its inadequate title. All are inconvenienced. How does insisting on PT here help any reader? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaders of Georgia is worse than Winston Churchill because, arguably, at least everyone aware of one Winston Churchill should be aware of other Winston Churchill’s, or at least their likely existence, and so astonishment should be low. For someone interested in Leaders of Georgia, many interested in one would be completely unaware of the other. Americans are notoriously uneducated on other nations, and individual US States are unimportant in far eastern Europe. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Title policy is established for us to have titles that are most helpful to readers. Following policy is helping readers. That’s why closers are supposed to weigh arguments based on how well they reflect policy.
Neither a JDLI argument against hatnote links nor expressing antipathy for PT provides any policy basis to oppose this proposal. Citing ASTONISH, which is an essay, or citing PRECISE, which explicitly allows ambiguous titles per PT, to oppose moving to an undisambiguated title, also is devoid of policy basis. В²C ☎ 11:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Policy allows primary topics to have ambiguous titles, but not every ambiguous title is an appropriate primary topic — and there's obviously considerable disagreement about whether this one is. Painting opposing views as mere JDLIs unmoored from policy (despite repeated explanations to the contrary) is false and unhelpful. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is an “appropriate” primary topic? Of course not every ambiguous title has a primary topic. What’s relevant here is whether this title does. Not Georgia. Not Leaders. But List of leaders of Georgia. The only question is about anyone searching with that full title: what are the relative likelihoods that they’re seeking a list of leaders of the country vs the state? No one on opposition has even addressed that question, much less presented a reasonable argument that these likelihoods are too close for this title to have a primary topic. Personally, I can’t imagine anyone searching for a list of governors of a U.S. state using “list of leaders”. That’s why we don’t even have a redirect for “List of leaders of X” for any US state X. But I’ll grant it might be one in a hundred. But even if it’s that many, that’s an overwhelming primary topic. There has still been no policy-based argument opposing this proposal. —В²C ☎ 21:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Title policy is established for us to have titles that are most helpful to readers.
Theres your flaw. Title policy was established to help editors with wikilinking. There was no reference to what serves readers, and there still isn’t. Fortunately, many things naturally align, but one thing that doesn’t is forcing PrimaryTopic where they does exist, or title minimalism in general. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Observing that the proposal adds cost to every reader, and helps no reader, is not JDLI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
B2C: A primary topic may be appropriate if it's highly likely to be what readers are seeking when searching for that term, or if it has greater long-term significance that any other topic using that term. We have not concluded that here. You say that the nation-specific topic is 100x more likely to be sought via this title than the state-specific one; earlier you suggested it was 1000x more likely. You're welcome to that view, but it simply hasn't been shown to be so, and it's not the only valid viewpoint. (And nor is your own interpretation of our guidelines and policies the only valid one.) Please remember WP:DPT:

"There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move."

╠╣uw [talk] 16:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The likelihood of this topic being far more likely to be sought with “List of leaders of Georgia” than the topic at List of governors of Georgia has been shown repeatedly by simply pointing out that we have no redirects from “List of leaders of X” for any state X. How can there be sufficient likelihood of someone searching with that term when X is Georgia to keep the topic of this article from being primary, but insufficient likelihood for any other state X to even warrant a redirect? That makes no sense.
No one has even hinted that historical significance is relevant here.
And opposers have not addressed likelihood of searching with this title at all. They haven’t even explained why anyone would search for List of governors of Georgia with “list of leaders of Georgia”, much less that they would search this with sufficient likelihood to keep this topic from being primary.
“The title is ambiguous therefore it needs to be disambiguated” is not a policy-based argument, certainly not when there is such a strong argument for the title having a primary topic as this one does, and yet that’s all Opposers have offered here. В²C ☎ 18:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's true we don't have redirects titled List of leaders of Alaska, List of leaders of Alabama, etc. We also don't have redirects titled List of leaders of Iran, List of leaders of Turkey, List of leaders of Syria, List of leaders of Jordan, List of leaders of Pakistan, List of leaders of Bahrain, List of leaders of Qatar, or a host of others, so that seems irrelevant. My guess is that "list of leaders" redirects just don't get much use — and the pageview stats shared earlier bear that out.
"The title is ambiguous therefore it needs to be disambiguated” is not a policy-based argument." It is if we're considering primary topic status — and we are. If it's unclear which of multiple subjects users are highly likely to expect a term to refer to, then there may not be a primary topic for that term, in which case we consider disambiguation as the guidelines instruct. Have we established that the term "List of leaders of Georgia" is highly likely to refer only to the article about the nation? I don't believe we have. I get that you disagree with that (believe me), but I honestly see no compelling evidence demonstrating it, nor a consensus supporting it. Sorry. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, for the sake of argument, let's presume that "list of leaders of X" is an unlikely search term regarding any X, be it a US state or country. I think we can add a significant caveat to that: unless there is an existing article with that title. That is, it's also reasonable to presume that given the existence of an article at a certain title, any title, then that title is very likely to be a search term. I mean, once people get to an article one way or another, if they ever seek it again they are likely to have learned the title it is at, which should be a reasonable title for that article and easy enough to remember (and that's certainly the case here), and are therefore likely to search with that title again. Therefore, no one is likely to search with "List of leaders of Georgia" for either the country or the US state, unless they are already familiar with this article at this title, and are therefore likely to search for it with this title. That's primary topic, my friend.
But that's not all. Furthermore, I submit that since we do have a significant number of articles and redirects at "List of leaders of X", where X is always a country and never a U.S. state (List of leaders of Armenia, List of leaders of China, List of leaders of the Soviet Union, List of leaders of Kazakhstan, List of leaders of Ukraine, List of leaders of East Germany, List of leaders of North Korea, etc.) your claim above that no one is likely to search with "list of leaders of X", particularly where X is the country of Georgia, doesn't hold. In fact, because of all these articles at titles of this form, it's quite likely they are to search for "list of leaders of X", where X is a country, particularly any eastern-bloc country. You know, like Georgia, the country (not Georgia, the US state). So we have primary topic by that measure too.
Q.E.D.
--В²C ☎ 20:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QED? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Wikipedia is not for your algorithmic obsessions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Q.E.D.#Modern humorous use В²C ☎ 12:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, albeit somewhat weakly. I think the concerns raised by the opposers on potential confusion are valid enough, but can be dealt with via a hatnote to the two governors articles. If there were lots of potential articles, then the disambiguation would be fine, but this is a narrow enough case the hatnote is probably sufficient. SnowFire (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers of both articles are very likely to have zero interest in the other article. Every reader is going to be inconvenienced, either by a hatnote to something they didn’t want, and by being misled by the ambiguous title. There is no PrimaryTopic and forcing once where it doesn’t belong is a complete negative. No reader is inconvenience by the current title being what it is. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, WP:PTOPIC, WP:CONCISE. An emperor ✖ 22:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think a hatnote is sufficient per WP:ONEOTHER ; Georgia (state) doesnt have a list of leaders, so the dab isnt strictly necessary. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Huwmanbeing.–MinisterOfReligion (Talk) 18:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator, ambiguity concerns are misplaced and a hatnote is sufficient. Killuminator (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. And the previous close should have stood really per my !vote at the MRV. The governor of Georgia is never referred to as the "leader of Georgia", and a hatnote is perfectly sufficient here.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Arizona state governor Doug Ducey doing exactly that at a Brian Kemp rally: "We know the man that should be the leader of Georgia for the next four years. It's the man that's been the leader of Georgia for the past four years. So if you will get out and vote for Brian Kemp, we know that he is going to win." ╠╣uw [talk] 11:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, almost never. Cherry-picking a rare exception is not a counter to the point: someone searching with “List of leaders of Georgia” is far more likely to be looking for a list of leaders of the country than a list of governors of the state. —В²C ☎ 14:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there much basis for that? Its quite obvious that both have leaders, if I was asked what List of counties in Georgia was for I'd guess the US state as the country doesn't appear to have counties, on the other hand "List of leaders of Georgia" can clearly refer to either as governors are leaders. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is much basis for that. How many times do I have to point this out? There’s so much basis for it that we don’t even have redirects for “Lists of leaders of X” any state X. Yes, we don’t have such lists for all countries, but every article with a title in that form is for a country, and mostly Eastern European countries like Georgia. The notion that significant numbers would be searching for a list of governors with a “list of leaders” search for the US state of Georgia, but not for any other US state, is plain silly. В²C ☎ 17:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title of that linked video is "Georgia Governor Kemp holds rally as he makes final pitch to voters". You might also notice the Kemp for Governor sign in two-foot-tall letters on the bus right behind Ducey, or the "Kemp Governor" sticker on his shirt, or that he was introduced as "Governor", or that he says Kemp's opponent Abrams "will not ever be Governor". There are cases where someone is first identified as a governor and then as a leader for narrative variation, and cases where someone is identified solely as governor, but there's never a case where a Governor is referred to solely as a leader. Station1 (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per WP:CONCISE, B2C and many others Red Slash 21:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Having given this much thought, I've landed here against any possible confusion and astonishment for the readers of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia and reference work. Seems to me to be all semantics above, when we argue whether or not "leaders" is an appropriate term to use without the parenthetical qualifier. The semantic argument that "leaders" cannot be construed to mean "governors" or that a "governor" is not a "leader" and never called such just seems to me to be so much hooey, balderdash and, strictly speaking, worthless nonsense. We can debate this subject endlessly, so this is the last word that I have on the issue: the disambiguation in parentheses is absolutely necessary so as not to astonish and confuse our readers. End of story. Kaput. Bad form to argue otherwise. Apologies to supporting editors, but there is nothing more to say! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi P! Nobody disputes that governors are leaders or that this title is ambiguous. The question at issue is whether the title has a primary topic, and, to that end, what the relative likelihoods are of someone searching with “List of leaders of Georgia“ to be seeking a list of governors of the U.S. state vs a list of leaders of the country. That, you have not even addressed. But the undisputed fact is that searching for a list of governors of a US state with “list of leaders…“ is so unlikely that we don’t even bother with redirects of this form for any US state. В²C ☎ 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should have such redirects, but the probable reason that we don't would be that a "List of leaders of Georgia (U.S. state)" would include a lot more than just a list of the governors, it would include all the leaders under the governors, as well. Governors are leaders and Fords are cars, but leaders are not necessarily governors in the same way that cars are not necessarily Fords. I believe I covered the PT issue quite well by being adamant that the qualifier must remain. As for the searches, I've read no evidence that readers search one way or another, only assertions that they would be or would not be expecting one thing or another. One thing I do know is that if I happen to land on this article, this list, I would want to know immediately which Georgia it is about. We should not make our readers hunt for answers. Such an answer should be right there with the title and qualify it. Again, end of story. The main issue I see involves our readers, who should never be confused, confounded nor astonished, who should never have trouble finding what they're looking for. If there is even a slim possibility that readers might thusly suffer, then it is up to us to ensure that they do not. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re the first to suggest a U.S. state’s list of leaders would be anything other than a redirect to the list of governors for that state. Interesting. I suppose if we had articles like that it would be a consideration. But we don’t, so it’s not. You did not really address PT at all. In fact, you simply said the parentheses are necessary to avoid astonishing our readers. That’s not a PT criteria. PT actually states: “in no case do "what comes first to mind" or "what is astonishing" have much bearing, either positive or negative, on which topic, if any, actually is the primary topic.” And WP:ASTONISH is part of an essay, not any policy or guideline. I still see no policy basis to oppose this proposal. В²C ☎ 17:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just pointed out that a "list of leaders" can mean much more than just a list of any specific kind of leader. From that, I think it's an important consideration. Now, look at the PT criteria again. Don't see where you've raised that the country is the PT by usage or by long-term significance. Seems you've only asserted things like search patterns and such, and while search patterns are also a part of PT evaluation, they are a very subjective issue if no hard evidence in favor of their assertions is clearly presented. In the absence of hard evidence, I have to disagree with the assertions as speculative. By my own humble assertion that the parenthetical qualifier should remain in this title, I am specifically saying that the great country of Georgia is definitely not the primary topic over the great U.S. state of Georgia, and there is no compelling evidence (for me, ymmv) that it is the primary topic under any of the guideline's criteria.
Having said that, I will also say that it's close enough so that I still think your initial closure was appropriate under the circumstances. Just now however, after thinking a lot more about it, I have landed solidly on the no-PT, keep the parens with disambiguator side of this issue. So you don't have to work so hard to justify your closure. I am simply not convinced that removal of the qualifier is a good idea for WP readers. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: re: You’re the first to suggest a U.S. state’s list of leaders would be anything other than a redirect to the list of governors for that state. I suggested something along those lines above. Furthermore, guess what the title is for the ranking majority and minority members of the Georgia State Senate. BD2412 T 05:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are all kinds of political leaders. No one disputes that. The issue is about what someone is seeking when they search for “list of leaders of Georgia”. Hint: it’s almost certainly not a list of governors, or ranking party members. В²C ☎ 06:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an English-language encyclopedia. I don't think it's at all apparent what readers are looking for at this title, or whether they are arriving at this title by looking for the title phrase at all. BD2412 T 02:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is no ambiguity to resolve. Leader and Governor are not synonyms. The Governor of Georgia is not called Leader any more than the Governor of New South Wales is. Andrewa (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lachlan Macquarie Was Governor of New South Wales, and was a leader. There is ambiguity.
    How would you respond to my point that this removal of information from the title, in requiring the addition of a hatnote, gives no assistance to any reader and some hindrance to all readers? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide any source that refers to Macquarie as Leader of New South Wales? He's probably the most studied figure in history as taught in schools in New South Wales, but it's a new title to me. But that may not be a world view of course. My response to your question is that you're assuming that all readers approach Wikipedia in the way that you do, and I don't think that's a valid assumption. That's one reason we have guidelines and policies. They reflect a broader view than any of us have individually. Andrewa (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are pushing the boundaries, making a land grab, for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to apply to descriptive terms not frequently used, terms that sit very poorly with the two commonly considered aspects WP:PT1 and WP:PT2.
    You also seem to be into Recentism with your arguments. Georgia, the Province, had leaders that weren’t Governors. One could very reasonably search of the leader of NSW in 1820 with the expectation of finding the Governor, even if for recent years the expectation would be to find Premiers.
    I dispute that I make any such assumption, and claim that I consciously try to eliminate unstated assumptions. I do assume that a reader is frequently presented with a choice, whether from a google search, a Wikipedia search, a Wikipedia Go box autocomplete suggested list, or a wikilink, of whether to download that page, and likelihood of downloading that page of being mistake. The worst case is when the reader is wikt:astonished to get something completely unexpected, as will be worsened by this proposal to remove “(country)”.
    Title policy, as written under the title “Naming conventions”, was written to aid editors in wikilinking and did not explicitly consider the WP:reader. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Missing something, editor Andrewa. There are two ambiguous issues, that between Georgias and that between topic and subtopic. The topic is "leaders" and the subtopic is "governors". It has already been shown that the governor of Georgia has several times been called a leader in sources, that governors of Georgia are not the only leaders of Georgia, and that there is no discernible primary topic between the country and the U.S. state. How can it be possible that both terms, "leaders" and "Georgia", are not ambiguous? How likely is it that readers will be able to glance at the proposed title and know for certain precisely what is meant? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Leader of X is not necessarily the Governor of X nor conversely. They are different terms. They do overlap.
I think that it's quite likely. But that counts for little. It's just my view, based on the way I personally use Wikipedia. What I'm trying to decide is whether there is ambiguity in terms of our policies and guidelines, which reflect the way many users approach Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think our policies and guidelines reflect the way many users approach Wikipedia? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The users who come to a consensus on these policies and guidelines. This consensus represents all of those users. There may be many or few of them, but they still outnumber the views of one user such as myself. That's part of why we have policies and guidelines, and why it's good to make use of them.
In the case of policies such as WP:AT and others relevant here, many users have been involved in the consensus. Don't you think? Andrewa (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the forcing of PrimaryTopic onto new descriptive terms was not in the scope at the time of writing. I also think that putting the reader first should be blithely dismissed by vague waves to policy.
Many? I note that 1106 editors edited WP:AT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to believe policy and “putting the reader first” are at odds. Primary topic is essentially about serving readers best by considering what they are most likely searching for. That is putting readers first. In any case, if the policy you want to follow is IAR of PT, then present that argument. Otherwise, opposition still has no policy-based argument. В²C ☎ 05:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of policy as written, this title, a phrase, a concept, not a topic, has no long term significance, and certainly not more than than the same applied to the leaders of the province and state of Georgia. There is not primary topic for this phrase, and that is all that’s needed to justify disambiguation. The argument for astonishment (word, not shortcut) is in top of that.
Yes, title policy does not put readers first, it was written to put ease of wikilinking first. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_leaders_of_Georgia_(country)&oldid=1208120244"