Talk:Split, Croatia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discussion on moving Split (disambiguation) to Split

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

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

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

Please, can you reformulate your question. I haven't understood you well. Kubura 09:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Generic topic In most cases, the generic term or phrase should be the title of the actual disambiguation page. This permits an editor to visually determine whether a disambiguating page is generic in Category:Disambiguation. Links that deliberately point to generic topic disambiguation pages should use an unambiguous "(disambiguation)" link instead, to assist in distinguishing accidental links. In turn, the "(disambiguation)" page will redirect to the generic topic page. For example, the specific topic Tables (board game) links to Table (disambiguation), a redirect to Table with the template {{R to disambiguation page}}. Table is a generic topic disambiguation page. Primary topic When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. If there's a disambiguation page, it should link back to the primary topic. If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

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

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

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

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

Poll

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

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

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

Discussion

Reply to Reginmund:

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

Reply to Asterion:

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

Reply to Yath:

• I'd not oppose to "Split (city)". My main stand is just to use Split as the dab page, and move the city's article to another name. --supernorton 01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Spljet

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

It's not, Celtmist. "Spljet" form was an attempt made in 2nd half of 19 th century and at the beginning of 20th century. Artificially ijekavized form has never found solid ground among Croats.

The Croatian academic Šimunović wrote about this in his book. I can post you the exact reference, if you want to.

BTW, where does your interest for this city comes from? Kubura 09:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Night Picture

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

Weird Formatting

File:Weirdstuffonsplit.PNG

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

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

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

Requested move 2007

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

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

• Split → Split (city) — (1) The Croatian city is not the primary use of this name, so the dab page should be at Split. (2) The option of moving it to Split, Croatia has been rejected above. (3) Using Split (city) is following the precedent set by Cork (city), for the same reasons.
  • Split (disambiguation) → Split

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

Survey

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

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

Support votes

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

Oppose votes

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

argument to rename

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

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

With all due respect, there is no consensus whatsoever to rename the article. It was submitted to WP:RM less than a fortnight ago and the overall result was against any such move. Any disambiguation problem should be listed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. The previous badly formed move request was closed for obvious reasons: Canvassing is prohibited. This behaviour coupled with the "keep requesting the move till I get it my way" is just disruptive. Regards, --Asterion^talk 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing is not prohibited, it is discouraged. If we look at the 9 votes and comments for the 31 July - 03 Aug survey, there were only 4 votes who were clearly opposed to moving the article currently at Split to anything: Reginmund, Asterion, Husond (the biased admin who speedy closed the second survey) and Aldux. The other 5 votes either supported the move (Random Editor, AjaxSmack, Nyttend), or opposed it only because they opposed moving it to Split, Croatia in particular (Yath, Serge). In addition, Supernorton and Scott Davis clearly support the move. Seven out of eleven constitutes a consensus for other moves. Frankly, the first move was closed too quickly too. --Serge 22:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidently I am responsible for the premature closing of this move request. Strange as it may sound, I was unaware of the canvassing guidelines having been both a recipient and a poster of messages that might be considered votestacking. My intent was only to inform those who were against Split, Croatia but seemed to be amenable to Split (city) that a second round of "discussion" was taking place. (One had already been informed by another user.) I assumed that those voting no on the question of vacating the city article from Split would continue to be considered as opposition and that notification was unnecessary.

If it will allow for the resumption of consideration of the move, I will withdraw my vote as I don't really even care that much about the outcome. (I didn't propose either move.) As far as "allow[ing] some time before presenting new move proposals," this proposal is an extension of the previous proposal based on comments made during the intial poll, precisely the flexibility that should be encouraged at Wikipedia. A quick look at contentious pages such as Talk:South Tyrol reveals a continuing process of refining and reworking proposals to try and reach a consensus.

—  AjaxSmack  04:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It was just a wikilawyering excuse to close the poll. I'm confident the desire to close the poll happened first, followed by the digging for an excuse to do it, concluding with the discovery of the convenient technical violation on your part. We really need a clean survey/poll to be open for at least a week to result in a good decision here. Anyone agree or disagree? --Serge 06:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Serge, I would appreciate if you start assuming good faith and stop calling people names (i.e. biased, wikilawyering, etc). I would not have said a word had you not publicly attacked the intentions of other wikipedian in the way you did. Regards, --Asterion^talk 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out the bias of someone, or that they are engaged in wikilawyering, is not calling them names. When an admin takes a position in a survey, he is showing his bias on the topic at hand and should recuse himself from acting as an admin. Let some other admin without a stake in the issue do it. And noting someone's bias, or that they are wikilawerying, by the way, is not inconsistent with assuming good faith. I've never questioned good faith here. --Serge 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear guys, why don't we relax, have a cup of coffee, and re-focus our discussion on the renaming issue? Let's assume that everyone has done all things in good faith. A shortly re-requested move proposal might be inappropriate, but I don't think any further discussion should be terminated by any means before we reach a concensus on the issue. --supernorton 02:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All right people, let me ask just one question, if I may: IS THIS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OR A DICTIONARY? I find the requests for moving this article insulting, not just to me but to all my fellow citizens. The city may not be as famous as Nice or Venice, but it IS a living, breathing place with just under 300,000 people in the greater metropolitan area. Just because it may not be very known in international terms, does not make it less important. It looks to me like certain users ignorant of the city's existence are trying to shuv it out of the way so that they do not have to click once more, at the expense of insulting an entire city. I will fight this move to the end and shall promptly notify other editors from Split and Croatia. DIREKTOR 09:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC) PS, How can one possibly compare the encyclopedic value of a city to that of a move in poker?, or a little-known single?, or a #$X%& banana split!!!

DIREKTOR, please don't be insulted. I seek to improve Wikipedia by ensuring that all links to any article are in fact links to the intended article. By putting a disambiguation page at Split, it is easier to detect links that the author did not check what they should link to. Links deliberately to the article about this city can be made as [[Split, Croatia|]] which displays as Split. The comma notation with a state, province or country is very common in English to denote a town or city name with its enclosing administrative region. The proposal to rename the article is not any reflection on the city, but merely an observation that the word formed by those five letters means a number of different things to different people in English. --Scott Davis ^Talk 16:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the various meanings for the word "split" in English, but that does not change the indignity of comparing the importance (or encyclopedic value, if you will) of a fairly large city to that of a banana split. I understand your intentions and will not take offence, but the logic I follow is already accepted in Wikipedia (take a look at Nice for example). Changing Split into Split, Croatia is unprecedented and degrading. Even if it does save people a click or two, I do not think that is worth such an insult. If the issue becomes official again, you can count on me (and several others) resisting any alteration. DIREKTOR 17:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, to put this in perspective, please take a moment and visit the article about the city of Cork and the Cork dab page. Please note that Cork is not as large as Split, but it does have a population of over 100,000, is the second most important city in Ireland, and has a rich history. Yet, because of the material used to make a bottle stopper with the same name, it is not at Cork. It has nothing to do with the importance of the city. It has everything to do with what someone is likely to be looking for when he enters Split in the search box and clicks Go. If it is at least as likely that he will be looking for something other than a given subject with that name, then the disambiguation page for that name should be at that name. This is a general rule that applies to all articles in Wikipedia. There is no reason this one city should be an exception. --Serge 00:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I lived in the U.S. (L.A., Split's sister-city) for a couple of years so I am more or less able to put this in perspective. You'll have to do better than that. Without downplaying even in the slightest the importance of Cork, a cork (a noun) is an every day item whose encyclopedic value far exceeds that of the city to such an extent it would be ridiculous not to have the bottle stopper as the default link. There is no "split" as valuable in encyclopedic terms as Split. A more fitting association would be the city of Nice. DIREKTOR 00:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I drink more wine than you, but I've ordered corked splits of wine and champagne quite often. I like to do this in Vegas when I split my blackjack hand. Have you ever gotten a split while bowling? I'm not sure why these every day uses seem less "valuable" to you than a cork... You know, as "ridiculous" as it may seem to you to not have the bottle stopper as the default link for cork for you, it was not at all ridiculous for the residents of Cork and Ireland. Do you think it might be possible that you are similarly biased about the city of Split? --Serge 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(Beer for me thanks ;) Despite appearances, I'm not that crazy about Split that my "patriotism" impedes my sense of logic. A cork is as basic a noun as..., an apple, for instance, or a dog, or a spoon. How can you compare it with a blackjack split? I'm sure you will agree it is not nearly as "important" (or encyclopedically valuable) as the centuries-old bottle-stopper. I do not dispute (and this is probably your prime motivation for the debate) that a blackjack split is more commonly known than Split, this still does not prove it more valuable or important as the literally, millenia-old city (the urban tradition of the city is around 2500 years old, not that age in itself is of decisive importance). There is good reason why the city article is the way it is. What do you think about Nice? DIREKTOR 23:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Nice (disambiguation) speaks for why the city is at Nice. There is no usage on the dab page that comes close to having a better known usage than the city. The word "nice" meaning pleasant has no encyclopedic value at all, so there is no conflict with that. But the other uses of "split" do have encyclopedia usage and entries, do conflict, and are better known than the city. --Serge 19:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? So you either think that Split is irrelevant or you think that the fact that there are nerely DOUBLE the links in the Niece dab page than that of Split says nothing. Please!, the city is the perfect example: a large city's encyclopedic value is nearly always superior. Especially so if the alternative is not a well known NOUN, such as an apple or a cat or a cork. DIREKTOR 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you keep mentioning relative "encyclopedic value" as if that is some regularly used factor by which we decide what article is at a given name, yet I know of no reference to "encyclopedic value" in any of the naming convention guidelines. You seem to have invented this specifically to defend this one particular usage. Odd, that. What does matter is how well known a given usage is, and, frankly, the city Split is not very well known. You've already conceded that a black jack split is better known. Making up a new justification, "superior encyclopedic value", for which there is no precedent, to justify your own personal naming preference is not appropriate. --Serge 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I am FULLY aware of Wikipedia's naming conventions! Would you please explain to me, in detail, exactly why the articles on the Nice dab page are more important than those on the Split dab page. Or, if you like, why is Nice more important than Split? ("phoenix" is, once again, like "cork" or "door" or "thief", a well known noun and is far more relevant than Phoenix.)

Also, I ask you this: is the average Wikipedian looking for a split album going to write simply "split" when searching? Or when he/she is looking for a banana split? or a split jump? or a split in wine bottle nomenclature? On the other hand a person looking for Split (do not underestimate the city's importance or search value, nearly a million tourists visit or pass through the it each summer alone) would simply write "Split". If we are talking about the frequency of Split-realted searches take into consideration that there is good reason to believe a person writing simply "split" in his search mostly means the city. DIREKTOR 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was very persistent with the move of Cork to Cork (city). There were many more people defending leaving the city at Cork then there are people defending leaving this city at Split, and that discussion was much uglier. We can put this on hold for now, but no way is it going to stand in the long run. The move of Split to something to make room for the dab page here is inevitable. --Serge 06:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find it as fiercly resisted as possible. I did not tell anyone of this move, to get an emotionless debate (as much as possible, that is). DIREKTOR 07:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Italian name

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

It would make more sense to include it further down but not in the intro, as it is neither official nor currently used in English language. I cannot see the point of having the Greek and Latin names there either. --Asterion^talk 10:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That would certainly be fine too. I have created a number of "Names" sections to avoid the proliferation of foreign names in the lead sentence (e.g., Izmir, Ashgabat). But as long as there are names in the lead, the Italian name should be one of them, more important than the Greek or Latin. (For example, a layman perusing Shepherd's Historical Atlas sees the city of "Spalato" on a 1926 Distribution of Races in Former Austria-Hungary map, searches for it a Wikipedia only to find no mention). — AjaxSmack 20:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not seriously mind the addition of the name, but I believe it should come after the Latin and Greek ones. DIREKTOR 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

it was Roman fort made for protection against Franks.

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

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

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

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

What is missing

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

Map of Split in Croatia

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

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

Nice Article

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

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

Elections propaganda

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

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

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

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)

Removed tag

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

Aspalathos

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

The result (a few days ago) of the proposal was move. See Action section below. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2009

A scientific approach

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:

• A Wikipedia search for "split" returns 57322 hits. Obviously, this includes the verb form, so this may not be useful info. It is clear from a cursory review of search results, however, that the vast majority of hits have nothing to do with Split (city). Also, it is clear that there are many other non-verb, and thus potentially encyclopedic, meanings of the word "split."
• Wats for "split" shows 22566 hits. We know that some of these are from visitors who are not seeking Split City at all (which is why there is controversy here, right?), in which cases the visitors either viewed the dab, typed in new search terms or took other action. Wats shows that 1188 visitors used the dab, while an unknown number (which cannot be measured by wats) took other action. So Split (city) had 22566-1188=21378 valid hits, minus the unknown number of visitors who took other action. As for those who took other action, we can't know the number but it's fair to assume that some visitors did take other action.
• Wats turned up these statistics for other common meanings: stock split - 10351 hits, split personality - 8154, split (gymnastics) - 3587, split (unix) - 1378, split (lush album) - 1256, split (ten pin bowling) - 1154, split (album) - 1015, split (poker) - 394. I have omitted "banana split" from this analysis because I believe "split" would rarely be employed as a search term for banana split. There are several other dab targets, but just the ones listed above total 27289.

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)

Personally, I'd omit "split personality" for the same reason as "banana split." However, then we have 19,000 people not seeking city Split and at least 21,000 seeking city Split. Your presumption that less than 21,378 people looked for Split is false as the hatnote is the only way of navigating away from the city of Split article. Also, I believe that if people can be smart enough to think of writing "split (poker)" into the search box after writing "split," they don't really need a disambiguation page. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to fudge the numbers, both up and down, but there is no question that split is an extremely common word and there are many important topics that employ split in their titles. Furthermore, none of those usages clearly stand out as majority usages, which is why this is such a controversy and why the renaming issue keeps recurring. Please see my comments below, in the Post-action commentary, for additional, and perhaps more compelling, analysis. By the way, I completely agree with you about people being smart enough to type "split (poker)" or "split (gymnastics)," just as they are smart enough to enter "Split (city)" or "Split, Croatia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambtron (talk • contribs) 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support I will admit that I never heard of this city before, but I don't think the city is the primary meaning of "Split" in the English language (which is what matters on the English Wikipedia). TJ Spyke 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support move to Split (city). I would support even more strongly a move to Split, Croatia, based on the precedent of San José, Costa Rica, but Split (city) is okay. --Quuxplusone (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. My analysis provides justification for a move but alas, does not address the issue of optimal naming. Lambtron (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A proposal to move this article to Split, Croatia was soundly rejected some time ago. See the top of this talk page. There was a follow-up proposal to move this article to Split (city), but it was quickly closed, so it was not given a fair chance. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral on move, but if moved, should be to Split, Croatia. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) shows that there isn't a specific convention for Croatian placenames, and Category:Cities and towns in Croatia shows that both forms of disambiguation are used, but the comma form is more common worldwide and more informative, and it reduces the chance of needing to change if someone writes an article about another town elsewhere called "Split". PamD (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Split, Croatia might be a better name due to the possibility of other cities having the same name, although there are currently no Wikipedia articles about other cities named Split. Lambtron (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support move to some other name, and replacement with dab. Makes sense. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support move to Split (city). This is like the case of Cork in which Cork (city) was ultimately preferred over Cork, Ireland. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Action

For the record, this page is being renamed from Split -> Split (city).

Summary

1. There is both statistical justification and consensus for renaming Split (disambiguation) → Split.
2. To make #1 possible, the existing Split article must be renamed.
3. The city of Split, Croatia appears to be the largest—and possibly the only—city named Split on Earth, and consequently "Split (city)" is a suitable name for the associated article. If it turns out later that other Split cities do exist and spawn associated articles, the Split dab may be appended and hatnotes may be added to Split (city) to accommodate them.
4. To ensure that those seeking "Split, Croatia" arrive at the desired article with a single click, "Split, Croatia" must be modified so it will correctly redirect to the article about the city, just as it does now.

Implementation

1. rename Split → Split (city)
2. rename Split (disambiguation) → Split
3. make Split, Croatia redirect to Split (city)
4. update all dependent links

Lambtron (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Post-action commentary

I have fixed all links from templates, portals, categories, images ("files") and redirects. There are well over a thousand links from articles still to be fixed though, and I do not propose doing them all myself. DuncanHill (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DuncanHill. I will work on this as time permits, and help from others would be greatly appreciated! Lambtron (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was this moved? This move request has not been closed yet. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

After a few days the proposal was unanimously supported and so the move was done apparently without admin assistance 08:01, January 15, 2009. The request was removed from WP:RM at 22:47, January 15, 2009 by a WP:RM admin. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. All of the first 10 Google results on "split" relate to the city and none on the other terms and two on the second 10 Google results on "split" are not related to the city Split. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, of course... you're using google.hr (.hr is the internet domain for Croatia).. Try a search for split at google.com. No way does the Croatian city (or any other topic) meet primary topic criteria for "Split". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate that emotions are running high here, so I want to emphasize that I have made a good faith effort to remain unbiased, to set forth a fair and meaningful analysis, and to do what is in the best interests of the majority of WP users. It is an incontrovertible fact that Split (the city) shares its name with many other prominent topics and, by almost any metric, there is overwhelming evidence that none of those topics stand out as a majority usage of the word split. I presented only part of my analysis above, which proved that Split city is not a primary topic within Wikipedia. Viewed from a higher perspective, consider that google.com returns the following hit counts for "split" when combined with these words: unix 6.3M (i.e., 6.3 million hits), bowling 3.9M, stock 2.7M, blackjack 2.1M, lush album 1.6M, gymnastic 1.6M, croatia 1.6M. There are many other objective metrics that will yield supporting evidence for the "no majority usage" claim. On the other hand, while I do not doubt that Split city is an important topic within Croatia, any impartial analyst would agree that its global importance cannot be accurately assessed by means of Google's Croatian-centric search service (google.hr). In light of this compelling evidence, and in all fairness to the majority of WP users, there is a clear mandate to conform to well-accepted WP policy by renaming the dab page "Split," which in turn mandates a name change for the Split city article. --Lambtron (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. (if it makes any sense to "vote" now, when the decision appears to have been made behind the scenes by some coterie, reaching "consensus" in less then 24 hours and immediately committing mass moves). Let's just se on the alleged "irrelevance" of the 2 millenia old pearl of Adriatic a bunch of Americans apperently never heard of on the most popular Web search engines: Google, Live.com, Yahoo...Whoops, their million-dollar pageranking algorthims must really suck, because of encyclopaedic topic meriting WP articles (i.e. not the common split method of programming languages, and the common meanings of the verb/noun split) they all yield predominantly (>90% cases) Split the city as relevant search results. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, the moves were not committed in "less than 24 hours", but about 71 hours after the proposal was first made, during which time no comments opposing the proposed moves were made. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• … a decision supported by bright sparks who admit never to have heard of the city — doesn't that suffice as disqualification on this matter?
  I just picked 10 articles from What links here, omitting the obvious names from that region and anything to do with sport: all bar one referred to the city, Surf culture being the exception which refers to a surfwear label without an article and thus constitutes a misleading wikilink. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This matter is not over, and the move will be properly challenged in due time. The idea that the encyclopedic value of a banana split is considered equal (or nearly equal) to that of a city of 400,000 people is quite absurd. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, cities like Split and Nice are far more valuable than the words they otherwise mean in English. (I am from the city, but I'm also an experienced wikipedian that holds objectivity of thought in the highest regard.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• If your arguments were not based on silly strawman fallacies, they might carry some weight. No one supported the move based on the idea "that the encyclopedic value of a banana split is considered equal (or nearly equal) to that of a city of 400,000 people". The dab page now at Split speaks for itself: there are more than a dozen cited of uses of the name Split, and the city in Croatia is the only city among them; therefore disambiguating it by noting "city" in parenthesis in the article title clearly indicates that this is the one and only city of that name. Address that argument if you're still genuinely opposed to the move. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I will not be addressing any arguments at this time as I am much to busy to devote this matter the attention it would require. I'll be back, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• No worries. When you do take the time to do this, please remember to review WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, for your argument must essentially explain how and why the city in Croatia is the primary topic of the term/name Split. So you must show how the use of the name to refer to the city meets the criteria provided specified at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Also, to form a compelling argument, you might want to think about, and address, how most English speakers instantly think of the respective cities when they see or here Paris or London (examples of cities that are obviously the primary topics for their names), and I don't know of a single person off-hand whose native language is English who even recognizes the Croatian city as a usage of "Split", much less readily thinks of the city when they see or hear "Split". In that sense Split is very much like Cork. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Or like Nice ;) (Split is twice the size of Cork, I might add.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle, you wrote "I don't know of a single person off-hand whose native language is English who even recognizes the Croatian city as a usage of 'Split'". I am a person whose native language is English and if I were asked what most quickly springs to mind upon hearing the word 'Split', I would instantly say the city in Croatia. Whether you are using your own lack of global geographical knowledge as a yardstick in this discussion is not something upon which I would like to comment. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal experience with native English speakers and their lack of awareness of the existence of this small city is supported by google search results for "split" (only one entry even related to the city on the first page of results). To contrast, google results when searching for "nice" are dominated by references to the city in France. With respect to google test results, there is no comparison between Split and Nice.

Also, the dab page for Nice, Nice (disambiguation), arguably has no significant entries that are not derivatives of the French city (such as Treaty of Nice), while Split does. That said, an argument based on Nice as an example would better serve the position to disambiguate that page and make a Nice a dab page. But, again, based on google test results the argument for the city Nice being the primary topic for that name has a much more solid basis than does that argument for the city Split.

The size of a city has little to do with how well known it is compared to other uses of its name, and the issue of whether it is the primary topic for that name. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's 1st tool (What links here) on how to determine a primary meaning clearly supports the city Split, thus the move to "Split (city)" should never have happened. Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If we were to look exclusively at What links here for primary topic determination I would agree, but the lack of representation of the city in the English google search results for "split" simply cannot be ignored, and IMHO is a definite indicator that the city is not the primary topic, despite the internal links. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Even at the expense of invalidating hundreds (thousands?) of links to the city in existing articles? Google searches, the 3rd tool mentioned at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, are the crudest kind of evidence imaginable, easy to manipulate, impossible to verify — never more so than when asked to return meaningful results for highly ambiguous or common terms. What links here on the other hand shows exactly the term's current usage. Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I too am deeply concerned about this move. It lacks logic. We should see about having it reversed. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion has strayed from the facts of this matter and the spirit of Wikipedia. To clarify: the move was mandated by article traffic statistics, which is an excellent (and quite logical) metric for usage, while google surveys merely support those statistics. It's important to set aside personal opinions here so we can work together to focus on our common goal: meeting the greater needs of the global community. As for repairing links in existing articles, do not despair! Our army of Wikipedians will rise to the challenge, just as they have worked tirelessly to build Wikipedia into the great resource it is today. Lambtron (talk) 15:11, 27 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)

I too have no idea what Lambtron is talking about there. However, I will quote this sage advice from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

"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)'."

The plain fact that this talk page is so dominated by discussion about article naming is further evidence in and of itself supporting the position that there is no primary topic for Split. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:50, 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)

Personal attack? I don't think so. Not at all, and certainly not in the same league as Born2cycle, who wrote to DIREKTOR that "If your arguments were not based on silly strawman fallacies..." Now that's a personal attack. But given that you were one of the primary forces behind this move, it is hardly surprising that you choose to highlight what you dislike about the posts of those who disagree with you, while silently ignoring the unpleasantness emanating from your fellow proponents of this move. And that, if I may say so, is straying from the spirit of Wikipedia. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Alasdair, my comment was not a personal attack - it was aimed squarely at DIREKTOR's arguments, not his person. Your comment to me, about my supposed "lack of global geographical knowledge", however, was personal. I hope you can recognize and appreciate the difference. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment to DIREKTOR ("silly strawman fallacies") was a blatant personal attack, for which I suggest you might like to apologise. My preceding remarks stand. But we're a pretty rough crowd in the Balkans - this counts as polite conversation by our standards, and DIREKTOR's had far worse in his time, so if you don't apologise he won't notice. It was not until Lambtron started moaning that I even thought about this topic. His choice, not mine. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just can't see how characterizing the nature of someone's arguments as being "silly strawman fallacies" can be construed as an attack on that person. If any personal offense was taken, I do apologize, but I assure you and DIREKTOR that none was intended. Your comments were intentionally directed at my person, however, and I see no apology from you regarding that. By the way, generalizing about any cultural group (as in "we're a pretty rough crowd in the Balkans") is stereotyping and might be considered to be offensive to some. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be such a "moaner," AlasdairGreen27; perhaps I misunderstood your question. I understood you to ask "in what way has this discussion strayed from the facts of this matter and the spirit of Wikipedia?" I answered truthfully, giving numerous examples that directly addressed your question. If you meant to ask a different question, ask it, but please don't lump me together with those who would stray from the Spirit to further their agenda. Lambtron (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To Lambtron, you have conveniently ignored a central part of my remarks, namely the personal attack from Born2cycle.

To Born2cycle, heavens above SI, I'd leave this alone if I were you. If you want to start an argument, be my guest. If you didn't recognise my previous remarks as an olive branch, then I cannot possibly help you. So I'll address your remarks directly. If you had any knowledge at all of the Balkan area of Wikipedia, you would know it is one of en-wiki's hotspots. A quick review of the WP:ARBMAC restriction, with which I expect you are fully up to speed, will confirm that. I won't trouble you with the details as you may not be interested. You have to be pretty thick-skinned to survive around here. Saying that "generalizing about any cultural group (as in "we're a pretty rough crowd in the Balkans") is stereotyping and might be considered to be offensive to some" is crass, ridiculous, laughable nonsense. And before you ask me to refactor or other such things, I have chosen my words carefully. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Suit yourself, Alasdair, I'm not trying to start an argument. I was hoping you would help me understand why you would think a comment about someone's argument is an attack on that person. But I do hope someday you will realize that generalizing about members of any cultural group is stereotyping (even if it's not a demeaning characterization) and may be considered offensive to some. Perhaps this little chat will hasten that lesson. At any rate, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder which makes civil discourse practically impossible. Dovi. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with you, AlasdairGreen27, and I really do prefer to speak in a civil manner. I will gladly resume a constructive dialog if you are agreeable or, if you wish me to comment about a specific controversial topic, please ask a specific question. Lambtron (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)