Talk:Split, Croatia/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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)
      • Sorry, I should have drawn a road map with Split (TV series) and Split (poker) examples. My point was that the disambiguator "Croatia" for Split (city) does not elucidate what that Split is and, since Split is a word with numerous non-geographical meanings, Split, Croatia is not a sufficient disambiguator to show that it is a city in Croatia. Furthermore, there is only one city named Split, the addition of "Croatia" is not necessary. (WP:PLACE only deals with disambiguating multiple places of the same name.) The best similar example I can give is Cork (city) where the other uses of "cork" are primarily non-geographic. Djibouti (city) and Luxembourg (city) are other examples where the "city" disambiguator is used because there is only one (or one primary) city of that name. — AjaxSmack 00:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
        I understand your argument, but I still don't see why there being only one location called "Split" should make any difference. As I explained above, that is also the case with Solin, Croatia, and "Split, Croatia" suggests a place name just as well as, for example, Rector, Arkansas, where rector usually has another meaning, just as with split. For the record, I don't believe that "Cork (city)", "Djibouti (city)" or "Luxembourg (city)" should be moved; "Cork, Ireland" could also refer to County Cork, while "Djibouti, Djibouti" and "Luxembourg, Luxembourg" would be even more awkward as titles. The Celestial City (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
        The reason there being only one city called "Split" makes the difference is because disambiguators convey information about the nature of the disambiguation. Cork (city), Groningen (city) and Pegnitz (city) are all disambiguated with "(city)" to convey that in each case the name in question is the one and only city with that name; that it's being disambiguated from others uses that are not cities. By the same token, Solin, Croatia should be moved to Solin (city). As to Rector, Arkansas, the naming conventions for U.S. cities explicitly require almost all U.S. cities to be disambiguated by state, even when no disambiguation is required (unfortunately in my view). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:41, 25 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)
        • Isn't that Split-Dalmatia? Or is there another one just named Split? (I'm not that familiar with the geography of Croatia) :P At least the dab page doesn't mention a county by that name. Jafeluv (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
          • It is. The county is Split-Dalmatia County, so on that matter no disambiguation is necessary. Nobody says "Split" when they mean its county. It's not even used in indirect forms in the vernacular, IOW I've never heard anyone say e.g. splitska županija, let alone županija Split. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Right, "županija" = "county", lost in translation. What I meant was the Split Municipality ("općina"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:03, 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.