![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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".)
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)
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.
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:
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)
Split → Split, Croatia — per discussion above — supernorton 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''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.Reply to Reginmund:
Reply to Asterion:
Reply to Yath:
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
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.
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)
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. -- Hús ö nd 14:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Serge 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Please enter your vote to Support or Oppose this move in the appropriate section in the following format:
# Reason(s)/Justification. --~~~~
I'd like to clarify the debate. Some have argued that we should keep this article with the name Split for these reasons:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
I really do not sea the reason for the Italian name:
it was Roman fort made for protection against Franks.
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) Milan under German Empire??? what are u saying, if these are the wiki article writer, good luck wikipedia !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.51.100 ( talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Fine, fine... You've made your point as far as I'm concerned. DIREKTOR ( TALK) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Why no one mentions how Bajamonti lost election. It happends something like presidental elections in 2000. in USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedranko10 ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
Somebody should create article on Aspalathos colony which lead to croatian birth in this city! I would but don't have time to argue with unsavory characters over what, how, when, etc...
The result (a few days ago) of the proposal was move. See Action section below. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I first became aware of Split (city) a couple of years ago while seeking Split (gymnastics). Since then I have erroneously arrived here several times (including today). I have read all the pros and cons for renaming this article and concluded that justification for renaming depends on the answer to this question: is Split (city) the topic sought by the majority of people who are using the search term "split?" This criteria has been previously mentioned and seems to be acknowledged by both proponents and opponents as the principal criteria for a renaming decision, but no one has bothered to make measurements. So, using the excellent Wikipedia article traffic statistics (wats) tool available at stats.grok.se, I have gathered some data:
Conclusion: Of the visitors interested in "split," more than 27289 were not seeking Split (city), while fewer than 21378 sought Split (city). Thus it is proven that a minority of visitors searching for "split" are seeking information about the city.
Recommendation: Rename to Split (city), which conforms to Wikipedia naming conventions and is exactly what most people would look for if seeking information about the city.
Lambtron ( talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record, this page is being renamed from Split -> Split (city).
Summary
Implementation
Lambtron ( talk) 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) In what way has this discussion "strayed from the facts of this matter and the spirit of Wikipedia"? Please substantiate. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
AlasdairGreen27, perhaps it would be enlightening to review some of the "facts" and underlying spirit with which they were delivered. For example, Ivan Štambuk alleges that this is all about "a bunch of Americans" who regard Split city as irrelevent. Or how about Michael Bednarek's "bright sparks," who are deemed too ignorant to discuss this issue? Or perhaps DIREKTOR's huffy implication that the value of his great city has been reduced to that of a banana split. Finally, there is your own personal attack on Born2Cycle, in which you question both his intelligence and integrity. Clearly, many contributors have decided that the issue here is lack of global awareness, and the commensurate "dissing," of one corner of the world, when in fact it is really about a broad awareness of many similarly named topics. Michael Bednarek summed up the issue best when he pointed out that any term containing the word "split" is "highly ambiguous." Lambtron ( talk) 21:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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".)
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)
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.
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:
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)
Split → Split, Croatia — per discussion above — supernorton 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''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.Reply to Reginmund:
Reply to Asterion:
Reply to Yath:
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
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.
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)
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. -- Hús ö nd 14:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Serge 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Please enter your vote to Support or Oppose this move in the appropriate section in the following format:
# Reason(s)/Justification. --~~~~
I'd like to clarify the debate. Some have argued that we should keep this article with the name Split for these reasons:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
I really do not sea the reason for the Italian name:
it was Roman fort made for protection against Franks.
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) Milan under German Empire??? what are u saying, if these are the wiki article writer, good luck wikipedia !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.51.100 ( talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Fine, fine... You've made your point as far as I'm concerned. DIREKTOR ( TALK) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Why no one mentions how Bajamonti lost election. It happends something like presidental elections in 2000. in USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedranko10 ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
Somebody should create article on Aspalathos colony which lead to croatian birth in this city! I would but don't have time to argue with unsavory characters over what, how, when, etc...
The result (a few days ago) of the proposal was move. See Action section below. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I first became aware of Split (city) a couple of years ago while seeking Split (gymnastics). Since then I have erroneously arrived here several times (including today). I have read all the pros and cons for renaming this article and concluded that justification for renaming depends on the answer to this question: is Split (city) the topic sought by the majority of people who are using the search term "split?" This criteria has been previously mentioned and seems to be acknowledged by both proponents and opponents as the principal criteria for a renaming decision, but no one has bothered to make measurements. So, using the excellent Wikipedia article traffic statistics (wats) tool available at stats.grok.se, I have gathered some data:
Conclusion: Of the visitors interested in "split," more than 27289 were not seeking Split (city), while fewer than 21378 sought Split (city). Thus it is proven that a minority of visitors searching for "split" are seeking information about the city.
Recommendation: Rename to Split (city), which conforms to Wikipedia naming conventions and is exactly what most people would look for if seeking information about the city.
Lambtron ( talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record, this page is being renamed from Split -> Split (city).
Summary
Implementation
Lambtron ( talk) 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) In what way has this discussion "strayed from the facts of this matter and the spirit of Wikipedia"? Please substantiate. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
AlasdairGreen27, perhaps it would be enlightening to review some of the "facts" and underlying spirit with which they were delivered. For example, Ivan Štambuk alleges that this is all about "a bunch of Americans" who regard Split city as irrelevent. Or how about Michael Bednarek's "bright sparks," who are deemed too ignorant to discuss this issue? Or perhaps DIREKTOR's huffy implication that the value of his great city has been reduced to that of a banana split. Finally, there is your own personal attack on Born2Cycle, in which you question both his intelligence and integrity. Clearly, many contributors have decided that the issue here is lack of global awareness, and the commensurate "dissing," of one corner of the world, when in fact it is really about a broad awareness of many similarly named topics. Michael Bednarek summed up the issue best when he pointed out that any term containing the word "split" is "highly ambiguous." Lambtron ( talk) 21:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)