Talk:Split

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Split article.
Article policies
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Croatia Portal
Split is part of WikiProject Croatia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the nation of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Discussion on moving Split (disambiguation) to Split

08:36, 20 September 2005 . . Anthony Appleyard (Split moved to Split (city in Croatia): This is not the most important meaning of the word "split".)

No, of course not, but the most important meaning is wiktionary meaning, and this is Wikipedia. AFAIR, the vast majority of links to "split" refer to the city, so it's logical to keep the city here. --Joy [shallot] 13:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't the page Split, Croatia, with the disambiguation page the unqualified "Split" page? 220.240.113.179 06:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, can you reformulate your question. I haven't understood you well. Kubura 09:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page from Split to Split, Croatia, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 16:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He is saying that this page should not be the page you reach if you search for "split". He is probably right. The main page for split should be "split(disambiguation)". To claim "the vast majority of links to "split" refer to the city" is largely meaningless: it is more relevant to ask what the vast majority of people who are searching for split are looking for? I suspect that it is unlikely to be some little-known Eastern European city, and more likely to be something else from the disambig page.--90.192.153.44 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, first of all, it is not little known, it has 250 000 people. Second, it is on the Mediterranean (Southern Europe), not in Estern Europe (thank god), and finally THIS IS THE ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT THE DICTIONARY. What would you write in the "split" article? The history of splitting? A recepy for the banana split? this discussion is mindless, the city must remain right where it is. This is the largest port city of the entire Yugoslav region and among the most important turist destinatinos on the Adriatic. This is Wikipedia after all, you come here to learn things. What is more important than a living, breathing city? A poker split?, bowling?, a bad sci-fi movie? This is extremely insulting! That ignorance should ne the cause for the discrimination of an entire city, on Wikipedia! DIREKTOR


Hello guys. The first time I came across this page was when I was trying to look for the topic Stock split by typing the word "split" and click "Go", hoping for a disambuguation for this commonly used English word. To my disappointment, I didn't see the disambiguation page - please forgive my ignorance, this was how I first get known to the city of Split, Croatia.

Let's see how the official guide (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page_naming_conventions) explains:

Generic topic

In most cases, the generic term or phrase should be the title of the actual disambiguation page. This permits an editor to visually determine whether a disambiguating page is generic in Category:Disambiguation.

Links that deliberately point to generic topic disambiguation pages should use an unambiguous "(disambiguation)" link instead, to assist in distinguishing accidental links. In turn, the "(disambiguation)" page will redirect to the generic topic page.

For example, the specific topic Tables (board game) links to Table (disambiguation), a redirect to Table with the template {{R to disambiguation page}}. Table is a generic topic disambiguation page.

Primary topic

When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. If there's a disambiguation page, it should link back to the primary topic.

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

I shall summarise my points with linkage to the official guidelines and the previous discussions here:

  • In most cases, the generic term or phrase (in this case, "Split" followed by no word) should be the title of the actual disambiguation page.
  • When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other, then that topic may be used for the title of the main article. It should be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings. In my own opinion, the "well known primary meaning" is definitely what the English word "split" means, rather than the city of Split. However, whether this point really stands or not should be decided by voting or concensus here. People's ignorance to and desire to learn a certain topic are not reasons for making it the primary topic.
  • Using the article Split as a disambiguation page will not make Wikipedia a dictionary. All articles like banana split and stock split are concrete articles with detailed descriptions, rather than simple dictionary meanings.
  • Using the article Split as a disambiguation page is not an insult to the city of Split, but a fair arrangement for all users who want to get what they really search for. DIREKTOR has already suggested a number of different meanings of the word "split" (banana split, poker split, bowling split, a sci-fi movie). This is already a strong enough support for "split" having no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title "Split" with no "(disambiguation)".
  • For your information, the city of Phoenix in Arizona, USA has over 1,500,000 population, but Phoenix still redirects to a disambiguation page, as a reflection of the above-mentioned guidelines.

As a conclusion, I'd recommend that the plain title Split should serve as a neutral disambiguation page (this page) for all meanings, while article about the Croatian city should be renamed to Split, Croatia.

--supernorton 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Split → Split, Croatia — per discussion above —supernorton 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose - Per use of Nice. Reginmund 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - You do have a point Reginmund, but I suspect when a person searches "split" they are probably looking for the term as in "splitting something" and not the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Random Editor (talk • contribs) 07:11, 1 August 2007
  • Oppose - The city entry has got the most encyclopedic value. Turning Split into a disambiguation page would only make sense if there were more than one city. All other meanings should have a short mention in the dab page and be transwikified to Wiktionary if necessary or have their own separate entry (i.e. Split (poker). This is not a dictionary. --Asteriontalk 10:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. While in my estimation Split, Croatia is the single most important encyclopedic topic of "Split," the aggregate weight of other Splits is great enough to warrant a primary DAB page. See Split (poker), Split (ten pin bowling), Split (gymnastics) Split (mathematics), and Phonemic split for significant encyclopdic topics that are likely to be sought by a search for "split" alone. English-speaking users are probably marginally more likely to be searching for one of them than the city. —  AjaxSmack  17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC) And agree with Yath (below) that "Split (city)" is the most appropriate title. —  AjaxSmack  21:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while the city may or may not be the primary subject, the form "Split, Croatia" is nonstandard. If it's to be moved, it should be "Split (city)". --Yath 20:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Yath, but I agree with AjaxSmack too. See Cork (city). --Serge 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, simply because there are so many other things than validly are entitled "split". Nyttend 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Asterion.--Húsönd 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The town is the topic with most encyclopedic value.--Aldux 12:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Reply to Reginmund:

  • That's a good analogy, but by the naming conventions, I'd wonder if Nice should also move to Nice, France... However, the English word "nice" is an adjective, which is not an appropriate article name if it refers to "pleasant" (Pleasure is now the article about this concept). Moreover, "nice" is rather an abstract term, unlike "split", which as several other concrete meanings. I guess that people would rarely type "nice" to search for the concept of pleasure. Thus, I think keeping Nice as the article name of the French city has stronger support than keeping Split as the article name of the Croatian city. --supernorton 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Asterion:

  • As I said above, using the article Split as the disambiguation page won't make it a dictionary page, as many articles listed in the current disambiguation page are with concrete, detailed contents, rather than simple dictionary meanings. Providing something like a directory list is exactly what a disambiguation page should do, and this is not equivalent to the function of a dictionary. On the other hand, dear Asterion, may I ask how we should define what articles have more "encyclopedic value"? --supernorton 10:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Yath:

  • I'd not oppose to "Split (city)". My main stand is just to use Split as the dab page, and move the city's article to another name. --supernorton 01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Spljet

Is the city not known as Spljet by certain people in certain regions? Or is this just a non-standard form of the place from ijekavian regions? Celtmist 7 February 2006

It's not, Celtmist. "Spljet" form was an attempt made in 2nd half of 19 th century and at the beginning of 20th century. Artificially ijekavized form has never found solid ground among Croats.
The Croatian academic Šimunović wrote about this in his book. I can post you the exact reference, if you want to.
BTW, where does your interest for this city comes from? Kubura 09:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Night Picture

I have uploaded a night picture of the old city. It could be used on the main page. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Split-palais-nuit.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hugo Dufort (talk • contribs) 12:40, 27 September 2006.

[edit] Weird Formatting

The weirdness is circled in red. To see it better, you may need to enlarge the picture.
The weirdness is circled in red. To see it better, you may need to enlarge the picture.

Can anyone else notice this weird formatting or whatever on this article? I've taken a screenshot of it and circled what I'm talking about in red so you'll know what I mean (You may have to enlarge the picture). It looks like numbers/words are overlapping; I've tried to fix it, but I can't. If anyone else can notice it, can you please fix it, since I don't know how. It would be greatly appreciated. But it could just be a problem with my computer or browser.

The link www.split.info seemed OK to me, it links to "City of Split guide". Kubura 07:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Speedy Close for 1) selective canvass [1] [2]; 2) similar move proposal closed above less than a week ago as no consensus (despite the proposed name is different, several users expressed opposition in moving Split regardless of the choice). Please allow some time before presenting new move proposals. --Húsönd 14:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


--Serge 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Please enter your vote to Support or Oppose this move in the appropriate section in the following format:

# Reason(s)/Justification. --~~~~

[edit] Support votes

  1. As nominator. --Serge 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Please see my view in the discussion above, Split should be used for dab purpose. "Encyclopedic value" shouldn't be a support for keeping the primary title for the city. --supernorton 05:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. See my argument above. —  AjaxSmack  06:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose votes

  1. Oppose. I do not think we need to move this historic city to make way for banana split, and if we do, it should be moved to Split, Croatia. Cork is a special case; please see the move discussion on its talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's true that the argument that Cork, Ireland would have been ambiguous with the county of Cork (also in Ireland) does not apply here, since I don't believe Split, Croatia would be ambiguous. However, Split, Croatia is not an option here for a different reason: it was rejected (for whatever reasons that are irrelevant here) in a recent poll (see above). In any case, Split, Croatia is not available just like Cork, Ireland was not available (though not for the exact same reasons). Given the non-availability of Cityname, Countryname, the precedent set by Cork (city) is that we should go with Cityname (city). Hence the proposal here to move this article to Split (city). Hope that makes sense! --Serge 06:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Moving this article does not only make way for banana split, but also for all other meanings of the word "split" if speaking the word with nothing added may be confusing. Personally I'd prefer Split, Croatia, but since it has been rejected above, Split (city) is an acceptable alternative. --supernorton 11:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose (weakly, however). I don't have a strong feeling either way although I lean toward oppose. I like the current arrangement with this article named "Split" having a link at the top to a disambiguation page. -Amatulic 03:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I'd like to clarify the debate. Some have argued that we should keep this article with the name Split for these reasons:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so Split shouldn't be a page listing different meanings (that is, dab page).

Yes, wikipedia is not a dictionary, but take a look at split (disambiguation) -- what has ever made it a dictionary page? The dab page is not simply explaining something like what a dictionary does, but is linking to a number of pages, mostly with detailed encyclopedic text rather than short meanings as in a dictionary.

The city has the most encyclopedic value than other split-related articles.

Firstly, what has made the city having more "encyclopedic value" than other split-related articles? Secondly, even if the city does have more so-called "encyclopedic value", this should not be taken into consideration when we choose what article takes the primary topic Split. The guideline in Wikipedia about disambiguation states that an article can take the primary topic only if "there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other". Therefore, what we should argue here is NOT which article has more encyclopedic value, but which topic (if any) is the most widely represented by the word "split", and much more represented than any other. Our debate should focus on whether the city of Split is the concept most referred to when we talk about "split".

--supernorton 11:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] argument to rename

I'm not a regular editor here, and only found out about the page because of the link to the above rename discussions posted to Wikipedia talk:naming conventions (settlements). I note that there have been two recent proposals to move this page out of the way so that the disambig page can be at the simple name Split. If consensus remains that the city article should have the short name, someone needs to regularly check for links that link here, but mean something else. There are less than a thousand links to this page, but I have fixed six that didn't belong here. I don't know when anyone last scanned the incoming links. For the record, I prefer Split, Croatia over Split (city), but either is preferable to the current situation. --Scott Davis Talk 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I too support Split, Croatia over Split (city), but either (or Split (Croatia)) would be preferable to leaving this article at Split. In any case, I do believe there is a consensus to move the page, but unfortunately the last proprosal was prematurely closed by an admin who is on record for being opposed to this apparent consensus. It would be helpful for others to note their position here... (even if it's months from now...) --Serge 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is no consensus whatsoever to rename the article. It was submitted to WP:RM less than a fortnight ago and the overall result was against any such move. Any disambiguation problem should be listed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. The previous badly formed move request was closed for obvious reasons: Canvassing is prohibited. This behaviour coupled with the "keep requesting the move till I get it my way" is just disruptive. Regards, --Asteriontalk 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Canvassing is not prohibited, it is discouraged. If we look at the 9 votes and comments for the 31 July - 03 Aug survey, there were only 4 votes who were clearly opposed to moving the article currently at Split to anything: Reginmund, Asterion, Husond (the biased admin who speedy closed the second survey) and Aldux. The other 5 votes either supported the move (Random Editor, AjaxSmack, Nyttend), or opposed it only because they opposed moving it to Split, Croatia in particular (Yath, Serge). In addition, Supernorton and Scott Davis clearly support the move. Seven out of eleven constitutes a consensus for other moves. Frankly, the first move was closed too quickly too. --Serge 22:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Evidently I am responsible for the premature closing of this move request. Strange as it may sound, I was unaware of the canvassing guidelines having been both a recipient and a poster of messages that might be considered votestacking. My intent was only to inform those who were against Split, Croatia but seemed to be amenable to Split (city) that a second round of "discussion" was taking place. (One had already been informed by another user.) I assumed that those voting no on the question of vacating the city article from Split would continue to be considered as opposition and that notification was unnecessary.
If it will allow for the resumption of consideration of the move, I will withdraw my vote as I don't really even care that much about the outcome. (I didn't propose either move.) As far as "allow[ing] some time before presenting new move proposals," this proposal is an extension of the previous proposal based on comments made during the intial poll, precisely the flexibility that should be encouraged at Wikipedia. A quick look at contentious pages such as Talk:South Tyrol reveals a continuing process of refining and reworking proposals to try and reach a consensus.
—  AjaxSmack  04:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It was just a wikilawyering excuse to close the poll. I'm confident the desire to close the poll happened first, followed by the digging for an excuse to do it, concluding with the discovery of the convenient technical violation on your part. We really need a clean survey/poll to be open for at least a week to result in a good decision here. Anyone agree or disagree? --Serge 06:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Serge, I would appreciate if you start assuming good faith and stop calling people names (i.e. biased, wikilawyering, etc). I would not have said a word had you not publicly attacked the intentions of other wikipedian in the way you did. Regards, --Asteriontalk 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Pointing out the bias of someone, or that they are engaged in wikilawyering, is not calling them names. When an admin takes a position in a survey, he is showing his bias on the topic at hand and should recuse himself from acting as an admin. Let some other admin without a stake in the issue do it. And noting someone's bias, or that they are wikilawerying, by the way, is not inconsistent with assuming good faith. I've never questioned good faith here. --Serge 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear guys, why don't we relax, have a cup of coffee, and re-focus our discussion on the renaming issue? Let's assume that everyone has done all things in good faith. A shortly re-requested move proposal might be inappropriate, but I don't think any further discussion should be terminated by any means before we reach a concensus on the issue. --supernorton 02:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
All right people, let me ask just one question, if I may: IS THIS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OR A DICTIONARY? I find the requests for moving this article insulting, not just to me but to all my fellow citizens. The city may not be as famous as Nice or Venice, but it IS a living, breathing place with just under 300,000 people in the greater metropolitan area. Just because it may not be very known in international terms, does not make it less important. It looks to me like certain users ignorant of the city's existence are trying to shuv it out of the way so that they do not have to click once more, at the expense of insulting an entire city. I will fight this move to the end and shall promptly notify other editors from Split and Croatia. DIREKTOR 09:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC) PS, How can one possibly compare the encyclopedic value of a city to that of a move in poker?, or a little-known single?, or a #$X%& banana split!!!
DIREKTOR, please don't be insulted. I seek to improve Wikipedia by ensuring that all links to any article are in fact links to the intended article. By putting a disambiguation page at Split, it is easier to detect links that the author did not check what they should link to. Links deliberately to the article about this city can be made as [[Split, Croatia|]] which displays as Split. The comma notation with a state, province or country is very common in English to denote a town or city name with its enclosing administrative region. The proposal to rename the article is not any reflection on the city, but merely an observation that the word formed by those five letters means a number of different things to different people in English. --Scott Davis Talk 16:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of the various meanings for the word "split" in English, but that does not change the indignity of comparing the importance (or encyclopedic value, if you will) of a fairly large city to that of a banana split. I understand your intentions and will not take offence, but the logic I follow is already accepted in Wikipedia (take a look at Nice for example). Changing Split into Split, Croatia is unprecedented and degrading. Even if it does save people a click or two, I do not think that is worth such an insult. If the issue becomes official again, you can count on me (and several others) resisting any alteration. DIREKTOR 17:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, to put this in perspective, please take a moment and visit the article about the city of Cork and the Cork dab page. Please note that Cork is not as large as Split, but it does have a population of over 100,000, is the second most important city in Ireland, and has a rich history. Yet, because of the material used to make a bottle stopper with the same name, it is not at Cork. It has nothing to do with the importance of the city. It has everything to do with what someone is likely to be looking for when he enters Split in the search box and clicks Go. If it is at least as likely that he will be looking for something other than a given subject with that name, then the disambiguation page for that name should be at that name. This is a general rule that applies to all articles in Wikipedia. There is no reason this one city should be an exception. --Serge 00:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I lived in the U.S. (L.A., Split's sister-city) for a couple of years so I am more or less able to put this in perspective. You'll have to do better than that. Without downplaying even in the slightest the importance of Cork, a cork (a noun) is an every day item whose encyclopedic value far exceeds that of the city to such an extent it would be ridiculous not to have the bottle stopper as the default link. There is no "split" as valuable in encyclopedic terms as Split. A more fitting association would be the city of Nice. DIREKTOR 00:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I drink more wine than you, but I've ordered corked splits of wine and champagne quite often. I like to do this in Vegas when I split my blackjack hand. Have you ever gotten a split while bowling? I'm not sure why these every day uses seem less "valuable" to you than a cork... You know, as "ridiculous" as it may seem to you to not have the bottle stopper as the default link for cork for you, it was not at all ridiculous for the residents of Cork and Ireland. Do you think it might be possible that you are similarly biased about the city of Split? --Serge 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(Beer for me thanks ;) Despite appearances, I'm not that crazy about Split that my "patriotism" impedes my sense of logic. A cork is as basic a noun as..., an apple, for instance, or a dog, or a spoon. How can you compare it with a blackjack split? I'm sure you will agree it is not nearly as "important" (or encyclopedically valuable) as the centuries-old bottle-stopper. I do not dispute (and this is probably your prime motivation for the debate) that a blackjack split is more commonly known than Split, this still does not prove it more valuable or important as the literally, millenia-old city (the urban tradition of the city is around 2500 years old, not that age in itself is of decisive importance). There is good reason why the city article is the way it is. What do you think about Nice? DIREKTOR 23:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Nice (disambiguation) speaks for why the city is at Nice. There is no usage on the dab page that comes close to having a better known usage than the city. The word "nice" meaning pleasant has no encyclopedic value at all, so there is no conflict with that. But the other uses of "split" do have encyclopedia usage and entries, do conflict, and are better known than the city. --Serge 19:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? So you either think that Split is irrelevant or you think that the fact that there are nerely DOUBLE the links in the Niece dab page than that of Split says nothing. Please!, the city is the perfect example: a large city's encyclopedic value is nearly always superior. Especially so if the alternative is not a well known NOUN, such as an apple or a cat or a cork. DIREKTOR 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, you keep mentioning relative "encyclopedic value" as if that is some regularly used factor by which we decide what article is at a given name, yet I know of no reference to "encyclopedic value" in any of the naming convention guidelines. You seem to have invented this specifically to defend this one particular usage. Odd, that. What does matter is how well known a given usage is, and, frankly, the city Split is not very well known. You've already conceded that a black jack split is better known. Making up a new justification, "superior encyclopedic value", for which there is no precedent, to justify your own personal naming preference is not appropriate. --Serge 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Would DIREKTOR please take a look in the official naming conventions (the contents have been repeated above). Let's understand the naming policy in WP. We respect the importance of the city of Split in all aspects, and we may consider the city the most important of all Split-named article - but that's not the point! Whether an article can take the primary topic (Split in this case) is NOT decided by the importance or so-called "encyclopedic value" of the article, but by whether people would consider this article THE MOST FREQUENTLY REFERRED TO by the plain article name. When there is no single article that people most frequently refer to, it should result in a disambiguation page. (That's why Phoenix is a disambiguation page, rather than the article about the 1,500,000-populated American city.) Unless there is a concensus that people would mostly refer "Split" to the Croatian city at the first sight (personally I don't think so), it should not take the primary topic Split. --supernorton 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am FULLY aware of Wikipedia's naming conventions! Would you please explain to me, in detail, exactly why the articles on the Nice dab page are more important than those on the Split dab page. Or, if you like, why is Nice more important than Split? ("phoenix" is, once again, like "cork" or "door" or "thief", a well known noun and is far more relevant than Phoenix.)
Also, I ask you this: is the average Wikipedian looking for a split album going to write simply "split" when searching? Or when he/she is looking for a banana split? or a split jump? or a split in wine bottle nomenclature? On the other hand a person looking for Split (do not underestimate the city's importance or search value, nearly a million tourists visit or pass through the it each summer alone) would simply write "Split". If we are talking about the frequency of Split-realted searches take into consideration that there is good reason to believe a person writing simply "split" in his search mostly means the city. DIREKTOR 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "nice", if referring to the concept of "good" or "pleasure", is not a noun, and does not qualify to be an article name. The word "nice" in every other article listed in Nice (disambiguation) does not refer to this concept either. That's why the French city, rather than an article about the concept of pleasure, can take up the primary topic Nice. (Yet, if there is a concensus that the city, compared to other Nice-named articles, is not what the word "nice" most referred to, I'd also support Nice (disambiguation) -> Nice.) The word "split", however, is a noun. Quite a number of articles listed in Split (disambiguation) are actually referring to the concept of "dividing", which is the original meaning in English. That's not the point of importance. On the other hand, I don't understand why "split" isn't a common word as "phoenix" and "cork" are.

I'd appreciate that we've eventually returned to talk about "frequency", not "importance". That's my original question when I first propose the move: Does "Split" most frequently refer to the Croatian city? "Split" may mean different things to different people around the world, and all of us may have a certain level of bias or subjective view. To me, I'll vote for Split (disambiguation) to take the primary topic because I live in Asia, not heard of the city of Split before, and "split" simply means "dividing". To you, DIREKTOR, you'll vote for the city to take the primary topic because you come from this city, and this would deeply influence your orientation. To an investor in the stock market, he may vote for stock split. To a professional bowling player, he may vote for Split (ten pin bowling). So what'd be the final solution? I don't know - that's why I propose a move and ask everyone here what they'd consider the word "split" most referred to. --supernorton 12:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said before: a person looking for a stock split (for example) would not simply write "split" in his search. A person looking for the city would. What I'm saying is this: the city is very probably the most frequent aim for a person simply writing "split" in his search. Why do I make such a bold claim? Not because I'm from the city, but because any other choice from the dab page would rationally require further clarification (as I said before, see above). I impore you to realise the city is not the default choice by chance, there is good reason after all. DIREKTOR 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if this applies to all. I came across this page exactly because I simply typed "split" when I search for stock split. People wouldn't say "ten pin bowling split" when they're playing bowling, and "blackjack split" when playing blackjack -- they'd simply say "split"! Those "further clarifications" are used in the naming conventions in WP, but not necessarily in the search box. It is reasonable that some people would simply type the word "split" without anything when searching. We should not assume that they realise the existence other split-related articles and that they'd manually add something for clarification before searching. Also, I really dare not make any claim that anything would be the most frequent aim for people simply search for "split". I wanna see how the majority think. That's why I proposed the move. --supernorton —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:30, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

It definetly applies to all but a few, and probably even to those. (If a person expects to find a Stock split, they would, 19 tims out of 20, write "stock split".) DIREKTOR 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the debate is endless, since we have different perceptions. Ok, let's maintain the status quo, until more people express the same (or opposite) view as mine in the future. I would like to express my full respect to the city of Split, and it will surely become part of my travel itinerary in the future. --supernorton 03:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I was very persistent with the move of Cork to Cork (city). There were many more people defending leaving the city at Cork then there are people defending leaving this city at Split, and that discussion was much uglier. We can put this on hold for now, but no way is it going to stand in the long run. The move of Split to something to make room for the dab page here is inevitable. --Serge 06:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you will find it as fiercly resisted as possible. I did not tell anyone of this move, to get an emotionless debate (as much as possible, that is). DIREKTOR 07:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian name

Including the Italian name of Split (i.e., Spalato) in the header is important because the city was known as such in English until the early 20th century[3]. Including such important info is merely such; not not Italian irredentism or anything else. — AjaxSmack 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It would make more sense to include it further down but not in the intro, as it is neither official nor currently used in English language. I cannot see the point of having the Greek and Latin names there either. --Asteriontalk 10:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
That would certainly be fine too. I have created a number of "Names" sections to avoid the proliferation of foreign names in the lead sentence (e.g., Izmir, Ashgabat). But as long as there are names in the lead, the Italian name should be one of them, more important than the Greek or Latin. (For example, a layman perusing Shepherd's Historical Atlas sees the city of "Spalato" on a 1926 Distribution of Races in Former Austria-Hungary map, searches for it a Wikipedia only to find no mention). — AjaxSmack 20:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I would not seriously mind the addition of the name, but I believe it should come after the Latin and Greek ones. DIREKTOR 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I really do not sea the reason for the Italian name:

  • It is not native name!
  • Croatian name Split existed as much as Italian/Venetian
  • Comparing the Split with Izmir, Istanbul or Kaliningrad makes no sence at all. Izmir /Smyrna Istanbul/Constantinopole was established many centuries before Turks have arrived to that territory. Also Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg originally was not neither German neither Russians. Inhabitant of Old Prussia were Baltic tribes related to Lithuanians and Letonians. Germans conquered that area and adopted the Prussian name. Russians arrived there litterally after ww2.
  • Croatian population has lived in Split before Venetians and has always been majority during history. They haven' arrived after ww2 by parachuits.
  • Milan has been under German Empire for couple centuries! And nowhere is mentioned his German name :Mailand
  • Frankfurt am Main is nowhere mentioned by his original Latin name :Francofurtum ad Moenum. and it has that name because

it was Roman fort made for protection against Franks.

  • It was more famous under name Spalato before 20th century??? Who cares ?? Are the people from 19th century still live and would they get confuesed with this? Come on ,guys! if there can be article called Beijing ...


I could mentiones hundreds of other examples just on wiki. We can make link with names of Split in other languages on the separate page like for many cities. But it makes no sense on this way. Forcing the usage of Italian/Venetian names of Croatian adriatic cities is historical forgeries .

--Anto (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) - no reason for Italian name. This Italianization of Croatian toponims is present in many Dalmatia related articles. No need to apologize to anyone. Just remove it. Zenanarh (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is missing

As Split is known as University city, and city with lots of students, I was surprised that I was not able to find at last one word about it. Shame on us. --Billy the lid 08:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Split in Croatia

Could someone please fix up the location in Croatia map in the infobox. Alternatively we could find another map with the location of Split... DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried my best to fix up the Map in the newly-added city infobox, but I could not remove this text: [[Image:|250px|none|]]. Could someone lend a hand? DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Article

Indeed. I was thinking...it would be a good idea if someone adds a picture of Blanka Vlasic in sport section :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.206.84 (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 :D Thanx, good thinking. If you wanna help, see the above section. DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elections propaganda

Thewanderer, why are you pushing the political party sign? This is not part of the city userbox we are using, just take a look at the Zagreb or London or Prague city articles. They do not mention politics. Let's try to keep political struggles out of Wikipedia.
Does this have anything to do with the Croatian general parliamentary elections that are being held next week? I'll immediately call in an Admin if you insist on elections propaganda. DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Apparently you have no trouble with Karlovac, Pula, Osijek, Čakovec, Varaždin, etc. all including the mayor's party, but when I add mayor's party to Split's page, I'm committing "elections propaganda"? Budapest, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Madrid and many (if not most) cities contain the mayor's political party. There is no guideline against it. I am not pushing any propaganda. It's simply a verifiable fact that the mayor is from HDZ. If that bothers you, go to the polls. --Thewanderer (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, fine... You've made your point as far as I'm concerned. DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed tag

The tag makes no sense, the city is like 4 times larger then the second largest Dalmatian city... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)