Jump to content

Talk:Split, Croatia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Infobox image

The image is getting out of hand. Please stop adding this many images. Rather, I recommend improving the smaller image. Suggestions: remove the Faculty of Economics (which may have been added by someone for personal reasons :) and replace it with the Prokurative, and/or replace the unsightly Riva close-up with some other landmark. Just don't stretch the infobox image. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, where is the image? Someone removed it completely now! Why? O.o Ballota (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Your image was deleted, apparently. See what its about in the commons. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I was not my image. I was just asking why it was removed. Never mind. Now I created one from the photos made entirely by myself. I hope this one sticks... heh.. :/ Ballota (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Image sorting

OK.. what is going on here? I try to make a better and more meeningfull placement of the images (like putting the university picture in the "education" section), and someone just keeps reverting everything to the old state! It's not fare! Who's doing this? Give me one reason for it.

And the picture with the skyscrapers, in the EX-YU section is also gone! Come ooon! O.o

Ballota (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ballota, the image layout has to work on all resolutions. It does not work on a high resolution - the images stack up. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: move to Split, Croatia. Consensus seems to indicate that city, country would be least astonishing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Split (city) → Split, Croatia — Using "(city)" to disambiguate this article is very clumsy. Using this proposed form is much more standard and in accordance with WP:PLACE. Similar examples include Vodice, Croatia, Solin, Croatia and Križevci, Croatia. The Celestial City (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The comparisons in the nomination aren't valid. The Vodices, Solins, and Križevcis are disambigauted from other places of the same name so the geographic disambiguator makes sense. But the city of Split needs to be disambiguated from other non-geographical entities called Split (there are no other places called just "Split"). "Croatia" doesn't accomplish this. It could (though highly unlikely) refer to a a Croatian poker style or a Croatian TV series just as easily as it could a place in Croatia. What's so "clumsy" about the current title anyway? It is extremely succinct and fulfills the requirements of WP:DAB. — AjaxSmack 16:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see how anyone could read "Split, Croatia" about being anything other than the city, which is one of the largest in the country. Split (TV series) is Israeli, not Croatian, and Split (poker) has absolutely nothing to do with Croatia either. Your point about "Split" being the only place of that name is not valid: there is only one place called Solin (though there is also a river of that name, yet the Croatian article is titled Solin, Croatia, not "Solin (town)", in accordance with Wikipedia's titling policy. As for not liking the current title, I feel it looks odd given that it is one of the very few articles titled in that manner (see WP:PLACE). The Celestial City (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I actually think that "Croatia" is a better disambiguator. Also, the naming conventions actually seem to prefer disambiguating by country when that is sufficient. The current format is "used only occasionally for geographic names (as in Wolin (town), where no regional tag would be sufficient to distinguish the town from the island of Wolin)". In our case, Split, Croatia sufficiently disambiguates the city from other meanings of the word. Jafeluv (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. "X, Country" is generally the more natural disambiguator for cities; I highly doubt anyone would read "Split, Croatia" as referring to a TV series or poker style. Ucucha 00:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. "city, country" is a format only necessary when there exists more than one city (toponym) in different countries. The reason why one can find it among Croatian articles is that 1) the Croatian language (and the Croatian government) do not disambiguate between a "town" and a "city", creating much confusion; and 2) well, Croats like to use the word "Croatia" as much as possible :) (i.e. nationalist reasons). Those articles should very obviously be renamed rather than vice versa, and are very good examples of badly disambiguated titles.
    There is really no question as to the more concise and reasonable disambig. Even plain logic would dictate that "Split" is first a "city", and then a "city in Croatia". The second category is also variable, while the first is not (e.g. Split was only "Split, Croatia" for the past two decades, while it was a city for the past 2,300 years). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused by your arguments, as I don't see why distinguishing between a town and city is relevent here. The most important piece of information is not the size or status of Split (village? town? city?) but its wider location, i.e. in this case what country it is in. For the record, I am English, so have no intention to move this for "nationalist reasons" as you suggest. :P The Celestial City (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not talking about you, and I'm aware your motivations are "pure", as it were :P, but Croatian persons trying to translate the word "grad" into English would be faced with a confusing problem ("grad" can mean both "town" and "city") and in creating the article Croats simply choose ", Croatia" instead of the more logical disambig word.
My main point is that the fact that Split is a "city" disambiguates it from any other "split" quite sufficiently and without the need for further clarification. In other words, "Split" is first a "city", and then a "city in Croatia". The second category is also variable, while the first is not. "city" is 100% completely clear and sufficient, without going into further details (like where the city is located) in the title. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the "City, Country" is preferable where applicable and no further disambiguation is needed. Arsenikk (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The rules in WP:PLACE say that the preferred format is "City, Country" unless that doesn't provide enough of a distinction. I also feel that for English speakers, it is a better description, as most of us have no clue if there might be other cities in the world also called Split! Farscot (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Um no, there are no other places called "Split". What we should probably do is move this city simply to "Split", since this is the primary encyclopedic meaning of the word, there being no other meanings for the noun "split" without further disambiguation. E.g. Nice. Thoughts? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I would support a move to simply "Split", I'd like to see some figures on the popularity of this article, as opposed to other types of split (with a small 's'). My point about other places called Split is not whether they exist, but that people generally do not know that, and it's more helpful to them to pinpoint by location. The new world is full of old world placenames, and it's not unreasonable to expect there might be a new Split somewhere. And City, Country is the standard. Farscot (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • That's a separate issue, though not without merit. AFAICT all discussions on the matter were all more or less controversial. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
        • In strictly encyclopedic terms, the simple noun "split" without any disambiguation (e.g. "banana split", "poker split") in essence refers to this city. This is a little known fact and I'm under no illusions regarding the obscurity of the settlement, but Wikipedia is I believe here to shed light on just such interesting information. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, this is the normal way of doing placename disambiguation, and makes it a bit clearer than "(city)" (which would normally be used to distinguish a city from e.g. a province of the same name in the same place). Though it also seems very reasonable to make the city the primary topic.--Kotniski (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Per AjaxSmack. The current title is following the convention to disambiguate city names with "(city)" when the other uses of the name in question are not cities. For example, see Cork (city), Groningen (city) and Pegnitz (city). By moving this article to Split, Croatia, which is the common form to disambiguate a city from other cities with the same name, we would be incorrectly implying that there is at least one more city named Split. By leaving it at Split (city), we are correctly conveying that this article is about the one and only city named Split.

    Also, per DIREKTOR, who points out that Split's identity as the city named Split spans centuries, while its association with Croatia is relatively recent. Should the borders change again, there will be no need to move this article if it stays at Split (city). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    • No, the current convention is not to disambiguate with "(city)" unless there are more than one city per that name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation. Cork (city) is at that name because Cork, Ireland would be ambiguous (there's both a county and a city by that name). Groningen is both a province and a city in the Netherlands, so a regional disambiguator would not suffice. Pegnitz is also a river in Germany. Jafeluv (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Hm, there is also a county named after Split :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Jafeluv, I was not involved in the other moves, but I don't recall anyone arguing against Cork, Ireland due to a naming conflict with County Cork. To the contrary, the primacy of the city's use of the name Cork over the County was assumed in its longstanding place at Cork. Conflict with County Cork was not an issue for anyone, as I recall. Rather, the conflict was with other uses of cork, most notably as the bottle stopper and the material it is comprised of. That is why it was disambiguated with "(city)" rather than with ", Ireland"... to convey that the conflicting uses in this case were all not cities. This is also the reasoning that was applied here when this article was originally moved from Split to Split (city).

        As to Pegnitz, it appears that it was disambiguated with "(city)" also precisely because the other conflicting use was not a city (but, rather, a river). Yes, the river is also in Germany, but since no river is disambiguated with ", countryname", Pegnitz, Germany was (and is) available to the city; the river in Germany is no more reason to not use Pegnitz, Germany (or even just Pegnitz) for the city than is the Meuse (river) a reason to not put the French department at Meuse. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

    • Just to clarify: I linked to the naming convention above, but geographic names are also specifically listed in the disambiguation guideline. Both pages propose using the higher-level administrative division as a disambiguator for geographic names. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Music

The music section states that punk band Kinoklub hails from Split.

  1. That may be so (I have no idea really) but Kinoklub page states they are from Zagreb.
  2. Even if they are from Split, they would hardly merit a mention; we would have to mention roughly 4 559 other artists first.

This looks like self-promotional entry. Check please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SplitSpencer (talk • contribs) 04:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

R-11 Split

The Republic of Croatia section includes a photo of the Yugoslav destroyer Split and a description of its shelling of the city in 1991. The ship's page, however, says that she was scrapped in 1986. There must be some mistake. Is it possible there were more than one ship named Split? Poliocretes (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That should be Yugoslav frigate Split then. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Split population edit wars

According to the 2001 census, split had approx 188,000 inhabitants. According to the 2011 census, it has approx 178,000 inhabitants. Such statistics collected by census figures are examples of city population. THESE numbers are to be reported in the "city" field in the infobox.

"total" and "City itself" are completely meaningless terms.

Urban populations are sometimes, quote "totally independent of the administrative subdivision of the country;" in Europe these are not typically compiled by the census bureau. in 2007 the Split police department deduced a population estimate for Split having approx 227,000 inhabitants; urban areas are not calculated in the same way as the census attains its information. The urban area calculation is different, quote "since the lines between city borders and the urbanized area of that city are often not the same. The 2007 Split police is a prime example of that. THIS 227,000 number should be the one reported in the "urban" field in the infobox.

While the metropolitan population claim is current unverified, as the definition of metro areas dictates that peripheral towns are also included in the methodology, depending on the outward reach from the city, the 400,000+ number is possible.

i've given you here links to various Wikipedia articles; I've also mentioned real numbers from real documents. These users who eagerly propagated only the 2011 census figures as the be-all-and-end-all of Split's population are WRONG, and persistent altering of the numbers back to their 165,000 claim, especially the extremely incorrect usage of meaningless terms such as total and city itself should be seen as vandalism, which they clearly are.
--OettingerCroat (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The distinction between the population of the city settlement (== city itself) and the total population of the city (== administrative area) is perfectly clear and legitimate. If you wish to rail against the Croatian Bureau of Statistics, go ahead, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Split, because they apply the same criteria on all settlements. All cities (gradovi) as well as municipalities (općine) are divided into settlements (naselja). Removing this offhand only from this article would in fact constitute vandalism.
Secondly, where is the source for the police estimating 227,000 and does the phrasing of this source say anything to the effect that this is in fact "urban population"? A reliable source would nicely dispel all the issues, otherwise it's hearsay versus the published official numbers - and we all know the Wikipedia policy of verifiability - it's non-negotiable.
I know how police numbers can differ from censa - a lot of people have their legal place of residence (prebivalište) recorded in another settlement, but actually live in Split (boravište) - to get a better income tax rate. But a census is actually supposed to be more accurate because there's only so much bullshit you can sell the census workers about people who are demonstrably missing from the location of a census interview. And for illegal tenants (podstanari) who wouldn't get interviewed - tough, neither the police nor the bureau of statistics can be accurate on that front if they're purposely avoiding being recorded by both.
I figure all is disappointment over "low" census numbers is really a disappointment over the simple fact that e.g. Solin and Podstrana are standalone city and a municipality, so they don't get counted like for example Sesvete gets counted under Zagreb. But that's how it is in the real-world and the encyclopedia article merely documents it. Such examples exist everywhere - for example the entire Zagreb County is separate from Zagreb and simply can't be counted together other than as a metro population, even if it's very closely entangled. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Photos

Great photos but "too many" in WWII section. Some can be moved to Yugoslav Front--Grifter72 (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:VPB Destroyer (Razarac) Split.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:VPB Destroyer (Razarac) Split.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:VPB Destroyer (Razarac) Split.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In fiction

In fiction, the city was invaded and consumed in "Avengers" #2 (2012). Lots42 (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

*looks out the window* Seems fine to me... :) -- Director (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Where in Avengers 2? I gotta see that scene xD PS Im new to Wikipedia. I don't know how to sign this post or anything, so sorry

-FinestFantasyVI — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinestFantasyVI (talk • contribs) 11:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Expanding the History section

I've undertaken to significantly expand the History section. I've been doing research and much of the narrative needs correction. When I'm finished we may require a separate article, with some kind of synopsis here. -- Director (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary

I don't think Split was a part of Kingdom of Hungary. Several sentences are misleading. For instance: "For much of the High and Late Middle Ages, Split enjoyed autonomy as a free city, caught in the middle of a struggle between Venice and the king of Hungary for control over the Dalmatian cities" ; "After a long period of Hungarian rule, Venice eventually prevailed, as the Kingdom of Hungary was ravaged by Ottoman incursions."; "From this point onward Split and the cities of Dalmatia became the subject of a long and complex struggle between the Kings of Hungary and the Venetian Republic". See Croatia in the union with Hungary. Croatia was in personal union with Hungary, however Croatian land and Hungarian land was strictly divided. King of Hungary was separately crowned as a king of Croatia and Dalmatia. Asdisis (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no confusion, and there is no misleading. Split was, for about 200 years altogether, a vassal free city of the King of Hungary directly, as s part of his title as ruler of Dalmatia. There is no evidence that Split, or any of the Dalmatian cities (Zadar, Trogir, Dubrovnik..) were a part of the Croatian Kingdom. The "personal union" itself is actually very shaky and doubtful (the pacta conventa is a known, deliberate forgery), let alone the idea that the cities were ruled by the King as part of "Croatia" (in fact, the titles of Croatia and Dalmatia were seperate in this period). Be that as it may, Croatian and Hungarian lands were most certainly not "strictly divided". The current state of the relevant Croatian history articles on Wikipedia is highly slanted and essentially showcases the opinions of Crotian national historians (and not all of those at that). -- Director (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all. Personal union is not shaky and doubtful. Croatia has a long history in union with Hungary and its position in that union is very well known. Pacta conventa is not a proven forgery, however there are some doubts. That is anyway only one document. As I said, Croatian position in union with Hungary is well known. Split was not, not it had ever been a Hungarian city. That is way those sentences are confusing. They have the interpretation that Split was a Hungarian city. I suspect you have nationalistic agenda and it seems that discussion simply won't produce any result. Asdisis (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Never mind what you and your friends think and/or what you've heard in your elementary school history class. This is a common misconception/myth in our country. There is no evidence for the existence of any actual personal unions. The pacta conventa is most certainly a forgery. For all we know there might have been a personal union, but equally there might not have been one. There is no question Croatian lands (without Slavonia and northern Croatia) were very autonomous for certain periods, but we do not know if there was a personal union, which is a very specific form of arrangement. This comes from long discussions and thorough research, so I suggest you accept it and move on. Its a bit shocking to find out that "Hrvatsko-Ugarska" is a fake country, I know, but that's how it is. Nobody calls it anything but "Hungary" outside Croatian public schools.. In short: history is a lot more complicated than you think. I won't repeat this point.
Split was a "Hungarian city" in the sense that it was a vassal of the Hungarian king. Who came to its doors with his Hungarian army and forced the city to submit to him. Several times. In that sense, it was a "part of Hungary". And before that it was Venetian, and before that Byzantine.. It wasn't part of the Croatian Kingdom when the latter submitted to Ladislaus and Coloman. The city wasn't populated by Hungarians, though; or many Croats for that matter (at the time it was mostly "Dalmatians", i.e. old Romans).
The Middle Ages were a different time, you must remember. States were built on personal allegiance. There were no nation states.
I agree that discussion isn't likely to produce a result that you like, because you're quite wrong on every point. As for "nationalistic agendas" - I'm a Croat. From Split. Currently living in Split. The only agenda is your own. -- Director (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, let go pacta conventa. It does not determine Croatian position within the Kingdom. Split had never been a Hungarian city and those sentences I referenced are misleading. Please do not try to give yourself some credit by stating your nationality. I've seen that tactics from you in earlier discussions. I frankly doubt your claim. But that isn't important. I stated the arguments upon which I based my allegation. I had not mentioned your nationality. If I would need to guess, I would say that you are a Serb living in Split. It's nothing wrong with that, however misrepresenting oneself is below every lever. I've seen several discussions where you were quite adamant to state your nationality. You seem to think that your alleged Croatian nationality erases your nationalistic agenda. No, one's nationalistic agenda is not determined by his nationality, but by his actions. Asdisis (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, I must be Serbian if I don't agree with Croatian nationalist nonsense.. No Real Croat would do such a thing.. I obviously mentioned my (very Croatian!) nationality in order to discredit your claim of nationalist bias on my part. You can phrase it however you like, but Split was a vassal of the Hungarian king, and there's nothing misleading there at all: its sourced, from Thomas the Archdeacon through scholars quoting him. We're done here. You'll have to find someone else to offend. -- Director (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No, you don't have to be. That is just my guess. I stated that nothing is wrong with that and I do not base my allegation on your nationality. I explicitly stated that your national agenda can be seen trough your acts. You constantly mention your nationality, thinking you can overturn every allegation about nationalistic agenda with that claim. That is the first sign you may be lying. There are far better chances that you are not Croatian, since you have anti-Croatian nationalistic agenda, which goes hand in hand with Serbian propaganda. Second, and more important, even if it is true, that can't erase your nationalistic attitude. You can be Croatian and have strong anti-Croatian attitude. Nationality does not have anything to do with that, so please stop repeating your nationality. I started this discussions so other editors can participate and give their opinion. I know there is no point in discussion with you since you won't listed to reason, because you are led by nationalistic agenda. Asdisis (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The current lead sentence was here, basically in this form, for years on end. I disagree it is "confusing" in any way. "Croatia" is mentioned in the second sentence and can not be mentioned (and wikilinked) twice, nor can Dalmatia be deleted from the lead text altogether. Asdisis, I get you want to mention "Croatia!" as many times and as prominently as possible, but you need to consider style as well. I oppose and disagee with the recent change. -- Director (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is confusing to the readers who are unfamiliar with Croatian regions. Split is a city in Croatia firstly, and only then a city in Dalmatia. If you look any wiki page about any city, you will see that country is mentioned in the first sentence. If you also want to add Dalmatia into first sentence, that's ok, but Croatia can't be removed. That's opposed to clearly established practice on Wikipedia. I do not get your allegations and also I should note that your motives for such formulation are suspicious. In fact, your whole behavior on this page and in previous discussions I had with you is highly suspicious. Let's leave it at that. Dalmatia is mentioned right in the second sentence and I do not see why this discussion is needed. I do not see any reason, except nationalistic agenda, not to mention that Split is a Croatian city in the lead sentence, before the fact that it is located in Dalmatia. Here's a bunch of articles to disprove your nonsense about style: Šibenik,Dubrovnik,Zadar,Rijeka,Sinj,Omiš.You clearly go against established practice and your strong objections to my reasonable edit only show that you have some different agenda than concerns about style, that is anyway clearly different in every other article. Asdisis (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Disagree with your change per above post: "Croatia" can not be mentioned and wikilinked twice, nor can Dalmatia be deleted from the lead text altogether. It is quite common to describe a city's geographical position prior to its political allegiance, and is not confusing at all. -- Director (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said, Split is a Croatian city and that has to be mentioned before Dalmatia. I had not suggested to delete Dalmatia but to make the lead sentence more understandable to unfamiliar readers. If you want to state that Split is a city in Dalmatia in the lead sentence, than a further explanation must be added that Dalmatia is a Croatian region. This is too complicated. The lead should be according to my edit. Split is a city in Croatia, and in the second sentence Dalmatia is mentioned. I again express my suspicion towards your strong opposition to such a normal suggestion. This is not the first time I try to make a simple edit and you strongly oppose. I do not think I have seen a single source from you in the previous discussions we had. I will push this to the end. I do not want to waste my time discussing you, since you are lead by nationalistic agenda. I've had the pleasure to waste my time with you before. We won't resolve this matter, so I leave for you, as more experienced editor, to initialize next step to resolve this issue. Asdisis (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the country "must" be mentioned first, that's no more than your own opinion. Further, I don't have to do anything: its you who are pushing changes. If you have a different sentence in mind, propose it. If you want to "initiate" something or other, be my guest - but the change you are pushing currently is imo a step in the wrong direction, and I can't agree with it. -- Director (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That is the practice on all articles. It is unclear why you want to contradict that practice and introduce a formulation that would just confuse unfamiliar readers. No, it is you who are trying to introduce changes and you should lead the process. I reverted your edit and gave a good reason to do so. You on the other hand have unclear motives, as I explained. Asdisis (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is not the practice of all articles, but it is certainly customary to introduce the country in the first sentence. Anyway, I tried to formulate a compromise solution that mentions both. No such user (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
As a Serbian nationalist, I don't see anything wrong with the edit :D. Thanks Nsu. -- Director (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I just stated that introducing Dalmatia before Croatia can be confusing to unfamiliar readers who had never heard of Dalmatia. Director, led by nationalistic agenda, made my very simple and reasonable suggestion more complicated than it is. He is the one trying to introduce changes so he should have purposed a compromise. I explicitly mentioned that any formulation that mentions Croatia before Dalmatia is acceptable. Discussing with him is worthless, since he does not discuss in good faith. Asdisis (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You seem to think its the duty of others to do your bidding? I disagreed with your lead sentence, and noted my objections here. Instead of addressing the problems of your edit through proposing a different formulation (or at least addressing the other user's point in some way), you decided to post personal attacks and continued demanding that I do something about a problem you perceive. That's not my job. I just read your bigoted post in the thread above, and will report it at once. -- Director (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That was not my lead sentence. I only reverted your edit. Instead of addressing the problems of your edit through proposing a different formulation, you had tied to push the edit without consensus, and flip this discussion to my side. Like it is me who is trying to edit the article. I explicitly noted that any edit which mentions Croatia before Dalmatia is acceptable according to me, however you had not tried to purpose any other edit apart from that confusing formulation. Asdisis (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
My revert, as I have pointed out, was to the years-long status quo, and is in accordance with basic MoS guidelines (such as to avoid duplicate wikilinks). Your revert restored a recent, non-consensus edit, that besides which goes against said guidelines. I am not pushing any edit, you are. Hence it is on you to revise your proposal if you wish (and yes it is "yours" after you restored it, unless you go around reverting to versions you disagree with).
The issue is moot, though. I say this to explain certain basic aspects of Wiki, under the assumption that you're a newcomer and are not, in fact, an (obvious) sock. -- Director (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not pushing any particular formulation. I just stated that mentioning Dalmatia before any statement that Dalmatia is Croatian region is confusing to unfamiliar readers. Your objections are unreasonable, since the practice on other articles is different. You can report, but refrain yourself from that kind of allegations on talk pages. This is the second time I'm warning you of that. No I'm not a sock puppet, and you haven't put any argument to support that allegation. Next time I will report you. Asdisis (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Name

Consensus is fairly clearly in favour of including the Italian name in the lede. Number 57 11:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Italian name isn't used today, and there is no reason to state it in the lead. Feel free to state any good reason to include foreign translations. Asdisis (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You're pushing new edits - and its on you to justify removal. So "feel free" yourself.
The name is "used today", in Italy, and deserves a special place as the traditional name of the city. I'm not sure, but I think it was actually the official name until 1918, it was certainly official until about the 1900s at the earliest.
In short, its the same reason Gdańsk especially notes "German: Danzig" in the lead. The function of that entry is to assure people that this is indeed the "Spalato" they may have noted in older sources. -- Director (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not have to justify. I gave my reasoning. There is no good reason to mention Italian translation. Of course that Italian translation is used in Italy. That isn't a reason to mention it on english Wikipedia. If that is a good reason, than we can include every possible translation in every other language. The previous usage of that translation isn't important for the lead. It can be mentioned in the article, but lead should only contain translations that are relevant today. I opened a discussion and reverted the edit made recently. Please stop reverting me without consensus. I'm reverting your revert until consensus is established. If the relevant english literature uses Italian translation that it would be advisable to include that translation. You should provide sources that use italian translation. Previous official name can be mentioned in the article.Asdisis (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to enter into another stupid debate with you over nothing. The name is obviously significant because of its use in older sources and previous official status. It was there for months: do not remove it without consensus. Regards -- Director (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You have a certain claim, and I agree with you supposed your claim is correct. If that name is used in relevant English literature, I agree that it should be included. Until sources are presented, I will remove the name. To the edit made last month, before this edit warring started. Asdisis (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Asdisis, this isn't afaik a gazetteer entry or a guide to the town - it's an encyclopedia entry and as such the past is almost as important as the present. I put in the 'Italian' name following the Dubrovnik entry which similarly records Ragusa. I realise there may be feelings about past colonizations but the town was known as Spalato until less than a hundred years back as detailed later. That seems to me a good reason to record it at the beginning. Exactly how, I defer to others. Chris55 (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If you want a source, the one I happened to be using was The Black Death, by Benedictow. Chris55 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no feelings. I only support the stand that Italian translation is unnecessary in present time. I know that it was used in history, because Split had been under foreign rule. If we go by same logic, we have to include all translations that were used trough history. In another words, list all who controlled that area trough history. I noticed that foreign translations are mostly used from today's point of view. In another words, if in today's time those terms are used by relevant group of people. If relevant English literature today uses the same name, I agree it should be included. Source you presented uses narration from past point of view. So the main point is that I do not believe that Italian translation is used today by relevant group of people. I reject the premise that I'm doing something wrong by removing Italian translation. The equal interpretation would be that someone is trying to add foreign translation (although it is not used today) for the sheer purpose of driving attention to their agenda. I do not want to go into accusations, but it seems that you two think that I'm trying to remove the translation out of my personal agenda. That isn't true. Asdisis (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Asdisis is right. Italian translation is specified under section "Name", so there's no reason for duplicating text. Director, your comment that name "Spalato" is used today in Italy is pointless. Split is a Croatian city (not Italian) and it's totally irrelevant what's its current name used in Italy. According to your model, on article Rome we could put Croatian translation "Rim" because it's used today in Croatia. --IvanOS 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Asdisis is not right. That comment was only in reply to his comment that the name "isn't used today", the latter I think well illustrates the narrowness of the view he pushes. However that is not the argument for keeping the name in the lead brackets, please read the discussion.
Please be warned that further edit-warring will be reported as disruption. The entry was there for several months: stop trying to remove it without consensus. -- Director (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all, you have breached WP:3RR. You are an experiences editor and you knew what you are doing. I have considered of reporting you. Second and more important, you refuse to present any source to support your claim that Italian translation is needed in the lead. As I said, the discussion is very simple. Is there a relevant group of people who could find Italian translation useful. I do not think that there is and that is why i purposed to remove Italian translation. If there is you are free to present sources. From the nature of the case, I can not present sources to prove otherwise. I still do not understand why you protest so much for simple edits like that. You do not own this article, and your permission is not needed to reach a consensus. I would have agreed to leave the translation if sources were presented. However, because of your behavior I will toughen my stand. I haven't even mentioned yet that there is a separate paragraph which deals with the name. Read MOS:LEADALT. To quote: "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.". This will go to RfC unless you revert yourself. I really do not have time to deal with you and your strong protests to simple and reasonable edits. You have occupied this article and this is not your first such a strong protest to a fairly reasonable edit that should not have to produce any discussion or opposition. The same thing we had in the above discussion with mentioning Dalmatia before Croatia.Asdisis (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not, in fact, "breach 3RR" (look it up). The relevant guideline is WP:NCGN, point #2. Due to the official status of the name up until relatively recently, it is used in older sources. Such sources are both listed in the article, and linked on the talkpage. I have noted your practice of debating beyond all useful discussion (as have others), and you have been sanctioned for such disruption on this talkpage. Further edit-warring to delete long-standing content without consensus, will lead to my again requesting a review from the community. Please accept that you need not always have your way on this project. I've nothing more to say. -- Director (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
To quote: "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation.". I have presented my case and I have nothing to add more. You should have present those sources and quote relevant paragraphs in this discussion since you are more familiar. I would have accepted them. However, this is now irrelevant. RfC will resolve this issue. I haven't seen (or I do not remember) where you have "noted my practice of debating beyond all useful discussion". In fact I clearly stated in this discussion that it is not needed and that you are in fact the one who has a "practice of debating beyond all useful discussion". I strongly dismiss your claim that I have been sanctioned for such disruptions. That isn't true and I would like you to take this allegation back and apologize. Asdisis (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Should Italian translation of the name be written in the lead since there is a separate section Name. Asdisis (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • To briefly repeat my stand. It should not because of MOS:LEADALT which states that "once a section or paragraph is created (which deals with the name), the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.". Also, my initial reasoning for removing Italian translation was the lack of relevant group of people who would find that translation useful more than any other translation. Asdisis (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • MOS:LEADALT ofc points to WP:NCGN re place names ("the guideline for place names differs in this regard"). The name is relevant for the lead per point #2 therefrom, as a name used by previous inhabitants, and as a term found in numerous older English sources, some of which are used in the article (others are mentioned here on talk).. This is why it was there for months.. -- Director (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
1-I protest to claiming that sources say something without explicitly naming sources and relevant quotes in this discussion. Director is refusing to name sources, although i plead several times. He instead repeats his claims which are not supported by any source. I find that behavior disruptive.
2-I already explained the problem with the only one source presented. It uses narration from the past point of view. I would also like to add that this source only goes in support of my claims. Although it uses Italian translation, it explicitly states present city name. To quote: "Spalato (present-day Split)". English readers are unfamiliar with Italian translation and that is why this source explicitly states present day name.
3-Directory said that the name is used by previous inhabitants. First of all, his link leads to the Dalmatian Italian. Of course that Italians used Italian translation. Those are not the only inhabitants. The rest of them used present day name. He also misrepresented something. The Italian translation had been used and it is not used today.
4-Although we saw no sources that the old Italian translation is used today, and although we haven't seen that there is a relevant group of people who would find that translation helpful, there is a separate section Name. There is no need to repeat it in the first sentence.
5-Director linked WP:NCGN. I should quote from there: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted.". Secondly: "Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead...Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line".
6-I also protest to Director's behavior which lead to discussion and a RfC over a minute edit like this. This is not the first time he had done so. Asdisis (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The WP:NCGN guideline defines "relevant" foreign language names, i.e. those that should be used in the lead - as "one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". Yes of course "others used Split", but that is irrelevant to the argument. The Name section is not intended for listing alternative names - indeed, this is not warranted as there is only one alternative name used to day: "Spalato".
  • Here is a whole bunch of English-language sources using "Spalato". It is irrelevant whether they refer to the city in a historical context or not (this is ofc because the history of the city is part of the topic here).
Those are two separate points, either of which alone warrants the use of "Spalato" in the lead. There is nothing to discuss here, this is a very simple issue. Though I don't doubt you're able to write tomes of irrelevant retorts, straw men and red herrings... -- Director (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • An examination of the English-language corpus used in the Google Ngram Viewer shows that up until 1890 or so, "Spalato" was often more commonly used in English than "Split", considering all the false positives that "Split" must inevitably generate; and has not entirely disappeared from use. Nothing wrong with it in the lead, any more than Danzig in the Gdansk.

--Orange Mike | Talk 00:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The Danzig principle on cross-naming applies here. Significant and historical alternative names must be provided, if only so that people reading about the city in sources that use those names understand that it is referring to the same place. Wikipedia has an established consensus in this regard, as determined at the Gdansk/Danzig vote. There is no doubt that the city was previously referred to in English with the Italian name, no different from Ragusa/Dubrovnik. Therefore, I can think of no reason at all why the Italian name should be excluded. RGloucester — ☎ 17:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer seeing both names in the intro. The Italian name is relevant as being of historic importance. The Dutch language uses the Italian name for the city and I think it is a worldwide often used name. It is logical to have the name of a subject, even if it is not the official name or current name, in the intro text. I agree with RGloucester in that I think the vote on Poland-Germany topics can be applied to Italian-Croation topics, in this case. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that Spalato should be written in the lead per numerous explanations of Director. The RfC question is loaded and could mislead uninvolved editors to believe that Spalato is some kind of translation while Split is not. I joined this discussion because I was invited here by RfC bot. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of Italian version of name in lede. I disagree with the reading of WP:LEADALT, and would cite it to mean that the alternate name is a valid reference in the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits

Could you please explain your edits, Tzowu? Shall we start with the claim you inserted in the lead about Peter Kresimir? -- Director (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In the 1060's (most put the year on 1069) Split came under the rule of Croatian King Peter Krešimir IV. Yes, nominally it remained under Byzantine Empire, but it was like that since its early days all the way to the 12th century. In 1074 the Normans took over a part of Dalmatia while fighting with a Croatian king, but they were restored to Croatian rule with the crowning of Zvonimir by the Papal legate as "King of Croatia and Dalmatia". Following the death of Stephen II a civil war broke out, and Byzantium restored full power, which was later in 1096 granted to Venice. Of course, the Byzantines yet again retained nominal overlordship. There are numerous sources that confirm this, you know that also, just leave aside your must-disagree-with-everything-from-Croatian-history stance. Yes, I know, you are also from Croatia... so is Vedrana Rudan.
Can you explain why did you revert the rest 99% of the edits? Tzowu (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Lets get one thing straight right off the bat. Where am I from? What is my nationality and/or ethnicity? That's #1 none of your damn business, #2 doesn't matter at all anyway, and #3 I find the idea that you would presume to judge my "crotianness" - disgusting. I consider such posts insults and will respond appropriately. Suffice it for you that me and mine have been living in this city for veritable centuries.
For the third time. Where's your damn source stating that the city of Split was under the sovereign rule of Peter Kresimir? Of any kind. If he had been appointed some kind of "protector" by Michael VII, then that's what we'll say - not more, certainly none of your right-wing, 1990s, HDZ-esque historical fantasies. This is enWikipedia, not your teacher's primary school classroom. -- Director (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, after calling me numerous times a Croatian nationalist and justifing your edits (or repetitive rollbacks not bothering to check if there is something good in what someone added, more oftenly) with you being from Croatia, or an enlightened Croatian that found the courage to lift above the imaginary Croatian nationalism, suddenly its insulting if I repeat your number 1 justification for your POV pushing editing? Ok then, be offended and feel free to continue your Holy Crusade in degrading Croatian history and making the Yugoslav regime and its glorious beloved leaders look better. There are at least two[1][2] articles on which you failed to do so.
"As it was threatened by the Seljuqs from Asia Minor, the Normans from Italy and Venice on the Adriatic the empire was unable to maintain control over its Dalmatian theme. In 1069, it ceded control over its coastal towns (except Ragusa) to Krešimir IV but retained its nominal overlordship. He respected the autonomous status of the Byzantine towns and made Biograd, a Croatian town, his capital." David Luscombe, Jonathan Riley-Smith: The New Cambridge Medieval History IV, c.1024 - c.1198 part II, p. 272
"From 812 Split developed as a major Byzantine city. In 1105, after brief incursions by Venice (998) and Croatia (1069), the city acknowledged the nominal suzerainty of Hungary-Croatia and fought sporadically with its rival Trogir; from 1420 to 1797 it was held by Venice." [3]
There you go.
Its one thing to suggest one is overly-enthusiastic about his own country (a problem that is very common and severely plagues Wikipedia in general), and another to suggest one is not a "true" member of his own stated nationality based on some (imagined) ideological position. You are taking (what you think is) my ideology, and then presuming to evaluate my "worth" as a Croatian national. That is unacceptable, and you will cease if you hope to achieve anything in this dialogue short of an NPA report. You can call me a socialist or communist or whatever, if you really want to reciprocate and are as dumb as to think such claims accurate - but please refrain from presuming to judge me personally on such a stupid basis. To illustrate, it would be something like if I were to claim you are a football hooligan, based on your views about Peter Kresimir IV!
Now back to the issue. Yes I suspected Peter IV was granted suzerainty of some sort, but not full de jure sovereignty. Goodo. Then we shall say that, not clumsily insert a contrived statement about the city "drifting" into the "Croatian sphere"...
What sources do you have for the claim that the city of Split was in any way part of anything called "Croatia" while being a subject of the Hungarian king? The entity in question is referred to on this project as "Hungary", and the kings thereof ruled the cities as part of their title of "king of Dalmatia". -- Director (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Accusing me of using labels while in a post above ranting about HDZ, nationalism, right-wing, "historical fantasies"... and, yet again, primary schools. That is not dumb, right? Anyway, these are some very interesting interpretations of my posts, and I'm not even the one who is constantly mentioning your nationality, place of birth or place of residence, only you are doing that and using it as an additional argument in a way I already wrote in the previous post. And no, I don't think you are a less worthy not-true Croatian or communist, nor did I wrote that anywhere, nor do I know what an "NPA report" is, besides that it would certainly be a fail. Just a Yugoslav nationalist "overly-enthusiastic" about that former country and its leaders.
"Split became a Byzantine city, to later gradually drift into the sphere of the Byzantine vassal, the Republic of Venice, and the Croatian Kingdom during the rule of Petar Krešimir IV." I don't see anything "contrived" and "clumsy" here, it's even downtoned compared to those two sources. There isn't much difference between those two periods. Why is this sentence problematic?
Furthermore, in 1105 (or 1103 or 1107) King Coloman secured his control over Split and several other coastal cities. Now I'm not going to repeat what was already proven that Croatia and Hungary formed a textbook example of a personal union, like hundreds of other medieval kingdoms. It's not even that important since Split became even more semi-autonomous after the crowning of Coloman. It elected its own governors and was a subject of the Hungarian king, but also the Croatian-Dalmatian Duke (in the earlier times) and the Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia, especially from 1250 when the Ban was given the authority to choose the city governors. Sources for that:
  • "As a consequence, beginning in 1250, deputies of the ban of Croatia ruled in the name of the king in Split and Trogir. Both cities had flourished throughout the entire period, despite much political and military unrest" Florin Curta - Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500-1250, p. 398
  • "Soon thereafter Bela IV came to the conclusion that to prevent further wars among the Dalmatian towns his Croatian-Dalmatian ban, rather than the towns themselves, should choose the governors of towns. In 1250 he implemented this policy in Trogir and Split and in the years that followed in his other Dalmatian towns." John Van Antwerp Fine: The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, 1991, p. 151).
The ban certainly had more influence since the kings rarely even went south of Drava. Here are some more sources about Split and Croatia or Hungary-Croatia:
  • "From 812 Split developed as a major Byzantine city. In 1105, after brief incursions by Venice (998) and Croatia (1069), the city acknowledged the nominal suzerainty of Hungary-Croatia and fought sporadically with its rival Trogir; from 1420 to 1797 it was held by Venice." [4]
  • "From the second half of te thirtheenth century, Croatia had two bans, one for Croatia proper, the other for Slavonia. Under Charles Robert, Croatian judicial indepencence was reduced and Hungarian influence became stronheg, especially in Slavonia. On the other hand, Croatia proper, in particular the cities along the Dalmatian coast (Rijeka/Fiume, Zadar/Zara, Šibenik/Sebenico, Split/Spalato, Dubrovink/Ragusa), continued to retain their self-governing status whether they were ruled by Hungary-Croatia or its chief rival in the area - Venice." -text recognition: Paul Robert Magocsi: Historical Atlas of Central Europe, section 8
As for primary sources we can take a look at the charters from Split or relating to Split, where there are many examples of the Croatian Ban residing in Split of confirming some conclusions of local courts, disputes between local nobles, electing the governors... Al-Idrisi can also be mentioned, who explicitly wrote that Dalmatia was a part of Croatia, including the city of Split. There's even a map of that. So I think it's perfectly correct to add both Hungary and Croatia, although if we are to be absolutely precise than it would be the Hungarian King and Croatian Ban. That is why a timeline like that can never be accurate enough for any part of the Balkans history, there is too much maybe's, few sources and years that are mostly impossible to connect acurately. Tzowu (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That sentence was meant to illustrate how Split, a Byzantine (Roman) city, gradually drifted into the sphere of another Byzantine city - Venice. Venice was also a part of the Empire, and eventually took over Imperial holdings in the Adriatic. For Peter Kresimir, we must go with something like "between x-x the Croatian King Peter Kresimir IV held de facto control over the city, which however remained a nominal part of the Empire"
It is easily demonstrable that a formal "personal union" is uncertain, disputed among historians, and without direct evidence [5]. But that's not the issue here, and you are free to indulge in wishful thinking and fantasy however much you like. The issue is that you've not shown that the city (or the Dalmatian cities in general) were in any way part of the Croatian title. It is highly misleading to refer to them as being part of Croatia, or to suggest that by exceptionally referring here to Hungary as "Hungary-Croatia". In fact, all you've done with your sources is demonstrate my point: when under the rule of the Hungarian kings, the cities were not included into "Croatia" under any sense.
Once again I find myself at grief with your lack of understanding of the politics of the Medieval period. You're misinterpreting the quote-mined statements. That you are unable to distinguish between the ban of Croatia sending his deputies to rule in the name of the King, from him governing the cities as part of his banovina - should not be my concern. Just as with your inability to grasp the difference between having a legal setup of a 'personal union' and merely being de facto independent. The problem is well illustrated by your comical statement that there were "hundreds" of Medieval kingdoms in personal unions...
Needless to say I reject your pro-NDH editorializing on the topic of WWII. The edits expanding on the one month period before the Italian annexation are of course fine. -- Director (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
"Split became a Byzantine city, to later gradually drift into the sphere of the Byzantine vassal, the Republic of Venice, and the Croatian Kingdom, with the Byzantines retaining nominal suzerainty." Exact years and a more detailed description can be added further in the text.
The whole point of this timeline included in the article is that it's ahistorical, but since I assume that you will not agree with its removal, I'm trying to make it as accurate as possible. However, people are often unfamiliar with the concept and frequency of personal unions, dualist monarchies, vassalisations, autonomous cities or city states, king's realm including more than one kingdom... Taking that into account, saying that "Hungary" was the overlord of Split is historically inaccurate, just like placing the equality sign between the realm of the Arpad kings and Hungary (or any other medieval kingdom and dynasty in that manner). Not to mention that in charters related to Split there's no indication that Hungary is its ruler, or that Split is part of Hungary. And just one note here, the notion of Croatia in my posts and my edit of the timeline relates to the "Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia", as it was the full name of the kingdom. Sources added above confirm that the ban ("of the kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia") also had power over Dalmatian cities, I didn't need more than that. They don't confirm what you thought I wanted to point out.
So if we are going for historical accuracy then the first thing that should be done is the removal of such a timeline. Then the next thing is to rephrase sentences like "the Doge yet again expelled the Hungarians from the two cities". Clearly the king didn't send his troops from Esztergom all the way to Split, the local nobility mostly fought in those wars. I suppose you won't have a problem with extending the "Struggle for Dalmatia" section with the war between Domald and Gregory III and the one with Trogir?
Remaining concerns are related to the inhabitants section, in what world are people located in a 30 km radius that speak the same language (even in the Middle ages the ikavian shtokavian and the chakavian were very similar), have/had the same religion and the same Slavic and pre-Slavic roots, "three separate and distinct groups" just based on their place of birth (and this is not sourced)? Anyhow, I'm glad that my fantasies are being studied in Hungarian primary schools. Tzowu (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Inhabitants Article

What's with the inhabitants nonsense? Where did the author of the article get the idea of something like that? It's misleading and offensive towards Split inhabitants. Daß Wölf (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelmatST (talk • contribs) 09:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Whew!

I mean, did ANYBODY read the previous explication--if you can call it that--in its entirety? I sure didn't; I don't have that much stamina at age 60. [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.235.3 (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is this article in many of the other Wikipedia languages at the base name?

See for yourself - we ought to start WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussions in the talk pages of the other languages if we want to keep this page at this name. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the base name is completely warranted here. The article was moved to this title kind of quickly and sloppily, and it may be time to see whether the noun "split", as such, has any comparable contenders. Frankly there should be a "Split (disambiguation)" article, with the query itself leading here. -- Director (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2016

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: page not moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per search results and long-term significance. 182.239.97.158 (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

Regarding a citation

Previously the article contained this citation: Grga Novak: Prošlost Dalmacije; Knjiga prva - Od najstarijih vremena do Kandijskog rata, Split, Marjan tisak, 2004. p. 48-50

I have replaced it with the following: Novak, Grga (2004a). Prošlost Dalmacije, Knjiga Prva. Split: Marjan Tisak. pp. 48–50. ISBN 953-214-181-2.

It is used as a reference about Split in 11th century. However, pages 48-50 in the book are about the completely unrelated Illyrian wars. The citation is used four times in the article, twice in addition to others. I don't have access to the other sources, so I can't confirm or deny if they contain the information mentioned, but I added {{Failed verification}} to the two places where it's the only one. I'll leave it up if whoever added it wants to correct it, but I'll probably completely remove it after a while.

I'm fairly certain it's the same book - they were both published by Marjan Tisak in 2004. It should also be noted that the book shares an ISBN with an unrelated book by the same publisher. barakokula31 (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2017

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. There is a clear consensus below that WP:NATURAL applies in this case, and that natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. No evidence has been provided to show that the former administrative division that existed between 1975 and 1991 competes with the city itself for the status of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term Split, Croatia. Furthermore, WP:PLACEDAB specifies disambiguation for cities on the basis of 'the country in which they lie', rendering the concern about Split having been part of various different countries in the past irrelevant. The question of whether the city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the word Split, rendering disambiguation unnecessary, has not been sufficiently addressed in this discussion, and may deserve further consideration in a new move request. (non-admin closure) RGloucester — ☎ 17:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Split, Croatia → Split (city) – Reasons:

  1. As far as I'm aware, no other country has a city, town, or other notable place named Split. (city) would therefore be enough to disambiguate it, and Croatia is redundant.
  2. In contrast to the above, there is another Split in Croatia, or rather, there used to be: the City union of municipalities of Split existed between 1975 and 1991. Additionally, though this confusion is very improbable, Split-Dalmatia County also exists.
  3. Finally, Croatia is reducing over two thousand years of the city's history to the last few decades. Split has been part of Croatia, in one way or another, for at most 98 years (and that's being very generous regarding what constitutes "Croatia"), and part of the independent Republic of Croatia for 26. Just in the last 100 years, it has changed hands at least 7 times, and possibly more depending on how you count it.

~barakokula31 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. The purpose of a disambiguator is to disambiguate from other topics of the same name. In this case, there are no other cities (or places, for that matter) named "Split" but there are numerous entries at Split that are not cities. "(City)" is the most succinct way to say that this is not an article about a bowling split or a movie named Split but is about the city. This is what we do in other similar cases like Cork (city), Ordos (city), Veracruz (city), Hisar (city). &c. —  AjaxSmack  03:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. No other countries. Would that I was around to substantially oppose this move in the first place. Alternatively, I'd support a move back to Split, where this article resided for years. Per Nice et. al. Surprisingly enough - its the most common use of the noun in English. -- Director (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I confess to being astonished at this request, and more so by the support it has received. The only problem I can see with the current name is that it might offend some POVs because of long-standing territorial disputes. But currently, Split is in Croatia, and our naming convention clear that we prefer the current form of dismbiguation. A move back to Split might have some merit. This proposal has none. Andrewa (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Regarding the supplied arguments for rename: #1 is trumped by WP:NATURAL, #2 is a non-issue, and #3 is irrelevant. GregorB (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Split,_Croatia/Archive_2&oldid=1136381780"