Contents

Talk:Split, Croatia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Split, Croatia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Croatia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles Europe Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Illyria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illyria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illyria and Illyrians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllyriaWikipedia:WikiProject IllyriaTemplate:WikiProject IllyriaIllyria articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Inthis recent edit, User:Dans moved all the content concerning the city's history into the "History" section. Why was this done? The lead sections of other cities' articles (e.g. Rome, Venice, London, Beijing, Tokyo) talk about the history of their respective cities, even if only briefly. I think it should be moved back, as the lead section is very short right now. –barakokula31 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This history paragraph seemed too substantial to me to fit into the incipit. But I am open to other suggestions. --Dans (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to revert the dating system on this page back to its original format and would like to argue the case for why this should be done.

Firstly The BC-AD dating system was the original format used on this page. Wikipedia guidelines state that the style which is used first is the one that takes precedence.

Secondly, the article was arbitrarily changed to the CE-BCE style by a user (Lemmy C on the 25/02/14) without first seeking a consensus from users or providing any reason why the edit was made. This directly goes against the etiquette and guidelines which are encouraged while editing pages.

Lastly, I would argue, (although I freely admit this point is my own personal opinion and people may disagree) that the BC-AD style is understood by the public more so than the BCE-CE style and as Wikipedia is first and foremost for the public to improve and share their knowledge I would argue the BC-AD format is better suited.

It would great if I could get support for this as I have noticed that the BC-AD style is regularly changed with no proper reason other than personal preference and allowed to become the de-facto style.Zulu1963 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no compelling reason to change the stable version at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You offered no reason why, you are directly going against the guideline which you have espoused in your previous interactions with me. I suspect you merely prefer the other dating style. Zulu1963 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why wasn't consensus reached when it was initially changed to the BCE-CE style? If consensus had been reached I would not be attempting to make this edit. The fact is no consensus was reached and for some reason the edit was upheld. I am merely seeking it changed back to the style originally used on the page which Wikipedia guidelines state should take precedence as it was used first. Zulu1963 (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines also say don't change it without a good reason relating to the content of the article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an acceptable reason. Whatever happened 4 years ago is not in play now. What is the article-specific reason that you have for making the change at this time?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it in play now? The fact that you don't want it to 'be in play' has no relevance to this discussion. When I read this page I noticed that both styles were used. I then looked back to see which was used first and when it was changed. I then noticed that no valid reason was given for the change and it was a case of an editor arbitrarily changing information which relates to this article. I then reverted this edit due to the guidelines which were specifically broken on this article. I have also never stated that I have changed it because I don't like the style, that is merely yourself trying increasingly hard to justify an indefensible position. Zulu1963 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Split Collage.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a vandal serbian nationalsits are trying to remove beautiful panoramic photo of the Split 89.17.20.161 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

serbian chetnik terrorists are removing collage picture fo the Split — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.17.20.161 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what evidence do you have for this claim?? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is that no sane person would remove best collage of city of Split, while you are supporting this Vadalism and taking side of Serbs/Russians/Putin in discussion. You are terrorism doing economic damage to toursim of Croatia, by removing all photo collages from Croatian coastal cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.17.20.161 (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was great panoramic photo of Split, now there is not proper photo of Split, only one where it is under snow???? Even it is summer tourist place. 89.17.20.161 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing historical names of all croatian cities occupied by fascist italy in ww2 into italian, blockicking editing, blocking any discussions, refusing references, puting wide claimes, making topics protected from editing 89.17.4.83 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are banning croats from removing italian names of cities from own cities, every article 89.17.4.83 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that "by the Early Morder Age Italian name Spalato become universal" is not accurate. Universal name for the Split is Split as we see in many Links below. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/croatia/split/articles/split-croatia-holiday-what-to-see-and-do/ https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2022/nov/21/a-locals-guide-to-split-croatia-a-city-that-marches-on-its-stomach 93.137.75.97 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there some objection to add this data? From the Early modern period, in international correspondence and all issued city documents, used name was Latin Spalatum. Venetian and later Italian-language version, Spalato become official later in the Modern Period under Venetian rule. After Illyrian movement and recognition of the movement by the Habsburg Monarchy, in the 19th century the Croatian name Split and Spljet increasingly came back to prominence. Name Split officially finally replaced name Spljet in 1909. by the decision of the city council. 93.137.75.97 (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How we can change Wikipedia pop-up result saying that Split is city in Italy, after name Split is put into wikipedia search bar just before pressing enter. Obviously data about Split has many inaccuracies put recently. 93.137.75.97 (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been solved now. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newly added line of the article (not adding source), proclaims Split to be "historically known" as the "Spalato" in opposition with text of the article mentioning "Spalato" as the name used least among all historical names (as mentioned in the article, from the mid 18. century till lhe late 18. century and foundation of French "Illyrian Provinces" by the Napoleon). I am proposing reverting back changes, by removing the name "Spalato" from the article body, and by removing the such very "loaded" term, "historically known", from the first line of the article, especially until conflict with the text of the article is not resolved. Leaving link "See other names" in meantime would represent Wikipedia spirit of neutrality, more accurately. I have reported same recent patters of Italianization, and de-Croatization of the historical names of the all Croatian coastal cities on English wikipedia articles, supported by many fascist (therefore dangerous and criminal) Italian wikipedia activists. While, having same not allowing historical German names of South Tirol to be allowed on Wikipedia (see name Bolzano-Bozen). Such patters are noticed from the election of Italian Fascist government, as claimed by the renewed American news sources. Wikipedia must take action. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/09/giorgia-meloni-italy-election-fascism-mussolini/671515/ 93.140.146.254 (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the elimination of "historically known as Spalato" from the incipit of the article, since it has an important historical value, which is explained in the article. I do not respond to the subsequent provocations that have been written, which are from a political blog. LukeWiller (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

The Overlords of Split timeline has a dark orange from 1330 though 1350 that is missing a legend item description. Unsure what that section represents. 71.89.107.189 (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split’s climate is not really Mediterranean because the summer is not dry. 2A06:C701:4EE0:6600:9D18:344E:A4F8:82DC (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major climate classifications, like Köppen or Trewartha, generally define "dry summers" as having one month in summer below 30mm. Split fulfills that criteria, and therefore it is Mediterranean. Uness232 (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure he’s talking about one month, he’s talking about summer months should be below 30mm דולב חולב (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@דולב חולב That's not the standard Köppen or Trewartha rule. See [1], [2], [3]; they all point to either 30mm in the driest month, or 40mm in the driest month. Uness232 (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And one drier month is enough?? דולב חולב (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what WP:RELIABLESOURCES say on Köppen. Uness232 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The "Middle Ages" section introduces Doge Domenico Michiel. It later invokes somebody called "Michele". This is confusing. If the two are the same person then the spelling should be consistent.

2. The "Medieval overlords of Split" box has dates that do not match. In addition, the choice of colors is horrendous. Whoever chose the pink/brown/orange and blue/purple/magenta combinations really did not think that hard. How about using yellow, green, red and colors and anything that is distinctively different?

3. The "Venetian period" section starts with "By this time the population was largely Croatian". It's unclear when that was the case. I can only assume it was early 1400s but this should be confirmed with a less vague statement.

4. The "Inhabitants" section is unclear and uninformative. It's not for average readers.

5. The "Economy" section says "panamax and non-panamax". It's totally unclear what that means.

6. The "Museums and galleries" lists the exact location of museums/galleries which I find totally unnecessary.

7a. The "Sports" section says "Torcida Split is the oldest fan group in Europe estimated 1950." Please fix the grammar because the sentence does not make sense. I assume "estimated" should be "established".

7b. The "Sports" section says "Several have pro experience and the new coach of the national team was a former major league pitcher with the LA Dodgers". Is it still the case? If not, update as necessary.

8. Why is Trondheim the only twin city with a date?

ICE77 (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]