Talk:Ministry of Defense of Georgia

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

Requested move 15 December 2014[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:RETAIN seems to take precedence over how their site spells it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Defense of Georgia → Ministry of Defence of Georgia – English version of official web page spells it Defence (with a c). ... discospinster talk 20:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – the rationale is inappropriate. How the "offical website" spells it is not as important as what it is called in English-language sources. And maybe WP:RETAIN applies. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in site based searches on the official website "defence" got over 100 times more results than "defence". As an encyclopaedia Wikipedia should present information on the subject and not on related commentaries. Priorities here can get screwed up. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Ministry of Defence (Georgia). Its name is just the Ministry of Defence. We don't usually append "of Foo" on the ends of ministries whatever their English-language websites say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per RETAIN. A translation on a website is not an official name. -- Calidum 23:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RETAIN. Georgia has no WP:TIES to any English variety, and sources using "Defense" are about equally common ([1] vs. [2]).--Cúchullain t/c 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2 March 2016[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus. (non-admin closure) This seems to be a case of WP:RETAIN, WP:TITLEVAR, and WP:ENGVAR vs WP:NCGAL, with the main point of contention being whether the web site's english translation is 'official'. No consensus has been reached on this issue.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Defense of Georgia → Ministry of Defence (Georgia) – Their official website, http://www.mod.gov.ge/, spells it "Ministry of Defence". As does their verified Facebook page. WP:NC-GAL states "Use official names in article titles". This is not a machine translation. This is the official name they use. WP:RETAIN does not mean we keep incorrect names, have some common sense please. AusLondonder (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it obviously does not because this name is factually incorrect. Are you saying if someone had started the US Department of Defense page as Department of Defence it would have to stay at that name? Ludicrous. AusLondonder (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cuchullain: You appear to be missing the point. WP:RETAIN does not require we retain incorrect names. This seems to be a truly absurd lack of common sense. It does not matter what sources say, as American sources will usually spell it "defense" irrespective of the actual name, while Australian, British, Irish, Indian etc will do the opposite. For example, the actual name of the Indian Defence Ministry is "Ministry of Defence". Yet the New York Times spells it "defense". This is not a WP:TIES or WP:RETAIN issue. AusLondonder (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Regardless of what they happen to translate the word on their website, Georgia has no ties to any variety of English, and both spellings are in use. This one was both the first used on Wikipedia, and more common.--Cúchullain t/c 17:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cuchullain: In what context is "defense" more common? Why is it the name of their official verified Facebook page? Please also see WP:NC-GAL which states "Use official names in article titles". It seems to me you are favouring your own national variety of spelling in a rather nationalistic way. There is no national ownership of articles. AusLondonder (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's more common on Google Books, as I said. Plus, it was first. Your insinuation about "favouring your own national variety" could apply just as well to your comments.--Cúchullain t/c 18:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale for opposing the move is non-policy based. I have explained precisely why it is more common. You are incorrect to suggest I am favouring my own national spelling. I would never seek to rename the Department of National Defense (Philippines) because that is the proper and correct name. AusLondonder (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, my rationale is based entirely on the WP:ENGVAR guideline. And I suggested nothing about what you're "favouring", I merely pointed out that your assumptions above could apply equally to your own statements.--Cúchullain t/c 18:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. On Engvar, I feel more swayed by what the website is written in when you look through the English version than by the google hits, which I've never found compelling in Engvar cases due to it often depending on the writer. Currently the article is mixed on usage, so either way it should be standardised. Regarding "of Georgia" vs "(Georgia)", I think "(Georgia)" is a more standard disambiguation. CMD (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:TITLEVAR and WP:TITLECHANGES – Neither RETAIN nor ENGVAR apply to article titles. There is no benefit to this change. A reader can understand either version, and TITLEVAR makes it clear that articles should not be renamed only for the sake of changing the variety of English used. This organisation does not have an official English name, and Georgia does not speak English, so even if RETAIN or ENGVAR applied to article titles, they would not apply here. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My experience is that, if available, we use the spelling variant used by the organisation. For instance, several years ago we moved Israeli Labor Party to its current title based on what the party currently calls itself in English (as opposed to Labour, which was what the article started off at). RGloucester, your comment about the organisation not having an official English website is incorrect - had you clicked on the link provided in the move rationale, you'd see it does indeed have an English language version of the website, which uses "Defence". Number 57 12:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling on the website is not an indication of an official spelling. An official spelling would be a spelling set down in law as the English name. No such spelling exists. RGloucester — ☎ 14:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An organisation's own website is not an indication of an official spelling? The mind boggles... Number 57 14:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Find the law that established this organisation, and see if it specifies a legal English name. I doubt it. A website is a website, but it cannot be considered to be a source of the "official" English name without some evidence in law. Otherwise, the website merely uses one of two possible renderings of the real "official" name, that is, the Georgian name, with neither of the renderings being correct or incorrect, neither being official or unofficial. RGloucester — ☎ 19:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONSENSE AusLondonder (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the English name can only be defined by legislation is, frankly, ridiculous. The British Department of Education was renamed in the UK simply at the whit of the minister; Israeli ministries are renamed almost every parliament; it's nothing to do with laws. Number 57 20:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not the name as it is in law, it cannot be considered "official". The meaning of "official" is very clear, is it not? There is a difference between branding, i.e. branding this organisation as "ministry of defence" on a website, and the official Georgian name. Likewise, the Police Service of Scotland, which is called that in law, is branded as "Police Scotland". The name "Police Scotland" is used in almost every instance, but it cannot ever be considered "official". RGloucester — ☎ 01:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a meaning of official that meant it had to be defined by law. That'd make it impossible for non-state entities to have official policies etc. I'd say Police Scotland is a pretty official name, considering it's used officially, by officials. CMD (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can say whatever they like, but until it is codified it is not official. RGloucester — ☎ 05:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly ridiculous. An organisation's official name is whatever it decides it is. Number 57 10:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: - with great respect perhaps move requests aren't your forte as such. I memorably recall you opposing the successful move of Burma to Myanmar because Myanmar, both the common name and the "codified" name, "confused" you. AusLondonder (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- Both WP:Retain or WP:TITLEVAR are nice and clear in cases like this. In the absence of a strong national connection, leave it. AlexiusHoratius 06:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCGAL is also "nice and clear" as it states pretty nicely and clearly "Use official names in article titles" AusLondonder (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on whether an English translation of a website constitutes an official name. AlexiusHoratius 01:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Number 57. The English translation on the website is indicative that it is the favoured form, and absent any other strong reason, we should go with that. WP:RETAIN is designed to cover common concepts that have dual spellings, such as colour/color. It does not apply for organisations that have well defined names. Also, while Georgia may not have very strong WP:TIES, it is usually considered a European country, and hence we'd usually use British English as a default in such sphere.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 30 May 2016[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. Policy references in the less-supported oppose votes are convincing enough not to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 22:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Ministry of Defense of Georgia → Ministry of Defence (Georgia) – Per first line of WP:NC-GAL "Use official names in article titles". "Ministry of Defence" was used several days ago on a sign at a conference hosted by the Ministry. The Ministry of Defence spelling is used consistently by their official Facebook page and their official Twitter. WP:RETAIN does not mean we retain incorrect titles. That is WP:BURO at it's absolute worst AusLondonder (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever pick up on a typo as the main basis for your "argument". Because let's face it rehashing the "translator" bullshit just doesn't cut it. That has been PROVEN wrong. So continuing to push that is a case of WP:NOTLISTENING AusLondonder (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Precedent exists for this move. Israeli Labor Party was initially created as Israeli Labour Party. But because the organisation uses "labor" not "labour", even though Israel is non-English speaking, the party article was moved. Although, to be fair, of course this was a "British" to "American" move which many editors are wholly in favour of in all circumstances. Some of the arguments to move included that the US was a super-power and that American spelling were "reform spellings". Nevertheless, this was a clear precedent to support this move. AusLondonder (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since they clearly prefer British English and nearly all of the other Ministries of Defence in Europe are Ministries of Defence. ... discospinster talk 12:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per No Such User. Also per Cuchullain below, who correctly points of Georgia uses both spellings interchangeably (see [3][4][5][6]). Calidum ¤ 14:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Calidum: So you would prefer Israeli Labor Party to have remained at Israeli Labour Party? Talk about arrogance. You see a sign at an event hosted by the Ministry and you still want to use an incorrect name for them. That's condescending and imperialist. AusLondonder (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are they all lying? Is this some anti-American conspiracy from those dastardly Europeans? AusLondonder (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per my comments in the last identical RM started by the same user only 2 months ago. Georgia has no WP:TIES to any variety of English, so WP:RETAIN indicates we should keep the original spelling. "Ministry of Defense of Georgia" is as or more common on Google Books than "Ministry of Defence of Georgia". I don't believe the form used in the English version of the webpage is a compelling reason to change; Georgian government sources using "Ministry of Defense" in English translation, or both spellings interchangeably, are easily found.[7][8][9][10]--Cúchullain t/c 14:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cuchullain: Firstly, with the other RM closes as no consensus I see no problem with starting another RM. WP:RETAIN does not indicate that we keep incorrect names, have some common sense. What astonishes me is the way nationalistic American editors are so protective of their "reform" spellings. If this was the other way around, and the Georgian Defence Ministry had logos and signs, Facebook and Twitter accounts and websites spelling it "defense" but an article spelling it "defence" I'd be the first to support a move. AusLondonder (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your shows of bad faith toward other editors is tiresome. All it does is hurt your own position.
There's nothing "incorrect" about "Defense" here, as it's been demonstrated that other Georgian government documents use it and it's apparently more common in WP:RELIABLESOURCES, so WP:RETAIN is compelling. There's another problem with the proposal: "of Georgia" is perfectly suitable natural disambiguation under either spelling, so there's no need to insert the less preferable parenthetical disambiguation "(Georgia)".--Cúchullain t/c 13:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The combativeness and sarcasm is certainly getting old very fast, and isn't necessary. The user's intention to keep making new proposals every time the user discovers a new "source" that backs up his preferred title is also problematic, and seems to indicate a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude here. That needs to stop.
Further, Georgia is not an English speaking country, ENGVAR does not apply. Therefore, "defense" is not incorrect. I still support using what is on the Official Website, Facebook, and Twitter. But again, once this discussion closes, a moratorium on new proposals would be very refreshing. - BilCat (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BilCat: I never said ENGVAR applied. I have made a two proposals, not "every time" I discover a source. Thanks for your own display of bad faith. I think what they use on a sign at a conference they organised is a significant development. Opening a second proposal this year given the other one closed as no consensus is entirely appropriate. AusLondonder (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's less fact that you've opened a new RM, than the timing and your other behavior. Just cool it and there won't be further problems. You've said your piece, just let the RM proceed and accept the outcome.--Cúchullain t/c 15:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict) AusLondonder, I said "intention to", but if I misread your comment, forgive me. I would like some assurance that this isn't going to be a regular thing here. If ENGVAR doesn't apply, then "defense" can't be incorrect per WP policy as you're claiming, that's all I said or meant. Railing against American English as you've done isn't winning you any points with me, and I support the move! However, comments like "What astonishes me is the way nationalistic American editors are so protective of their "reform" spellings" are not helpful. Although I'm American, I was partly educated in a Commonwealth country, and in a British Overseas territory, so I am tolerant of other spellings. I do understand your frustration, but please remember this is about one little letter, and in the long run irrelevant. Please drop the sarcasm like linking to Freedom Fries. All that does is engender a hostile environment here. - BilCat (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for any offence caused. I view "defense" as incorrect because it is not the name used by the Ministry on any internet profiles nor its signage. I am not railing against appropriate use of American English. I have no problem with it. I do feel American editors tend to be rather defensive about US English in a way British editors aren't, for example. Look at the drama that takes place all the time at Talk:Humour or the successful bid to move Yoghurt to Yogurt. I also feel that editors are not listening to the very credible points I have made. AusLondonder (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People expressly challenging your points suggests they're being listened to, if not agreed with. Also, your comments are evidence that British editors are perfectly capable of being "defensive" about their national spelling. At any rate, that particular line of argument isn't winning you much sympathy, even from editors who already agree with you.--Cúchullain t/c 14:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope you haven't addressed their use of "Defence" on signage or on Twitter or Facebook and it's clear that you won't. I'm not British and my above comments weren't addressed to you. AusLondonder (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral as to spelling, but it should definitely be "(Georgia)" instead of "of Georgia". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to a parentheses when available, and "... of Georgia" is widely used.--Cúchullain t/c 15:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's never been normal practice on Wikipedia to use "of Foo" for ministries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: "Ministry of Defense (Georgia)". (Neutral on spelling of "defense". But the articles associated with the Ministries of defense for the rest of the world's nations using the parenthetical. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: we should use the spelling preferred by the Georgian Ministry of Defence itself. Ebonelm (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the organisation itself. Number 57 22:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ministry of Defense of Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ministry of Defense of Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ministry_of_Defense_of_Georgia&oldid=1206271510"