Talk:Tihomir Orešković

Requested move 1 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the prime minister is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a WP:TWODABS situation. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Tihomir Orešković (politician) → Tihomir Orešković – Disambiguation is unnecessary. Tihomir Orešković currently redirects here, so it is pointless to have "(politician)" appended to the article title. In addition, this article is clearly the primary topic: this article gets about 300 views per day, whereas the war criminal's article only gets about 4 views per day. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 00:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - you should make clear that it only redirects because you just redirected it. The "general" and war criminal gets all the hits in English books. It's unfortunate for the politician that he shares a name with the new prime minister. He probably does since 22 January count as primary topic so on that basis fine, but how long do prime ministers last? Removing (politician) may well be okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I redirected that over a week ago, so "just redirected" isn't exactly accurate. Had my edit been controversial someone would have probably complained/reverted it; I didn't think mentioning that edit was relevant to the current move discussion. But I suppose there is no harm in mentioning it.
    Yes, prior to 2016 the war criminal was the primary topic, but that is clearly no longer the case. I think we are in agreement here. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 10:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I actually thought your redirect was contentious because it used the wrong rationale. WP:2DABS applies when there's a clear primary topic. That is unclear in this case. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. It's an unusual situation that we have an overnight change of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but hey, we aren't paper. Per WP:TWODABS, a hatnote will suffice. No such user (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• I expected this to be brought up, but I can't say there would be clear policy reasons to support it. The businessman-turned-politician is virtually unknown in encyclopedic terms, and the wartime officer is only known through crime coverage. We can estimate the long-term significance of the prime minister to be higher, but it's still WP:CBALL as it stands. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. A bit sooner than I expected, but I feel that this is in line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - at the very least, the "usage" criterion (as opposed to "long-term significance", which is still not fully certain). Note that article count across all Wikipedia editions is 18-1 at the moment in favor of Orešković the politician, which roughly confirms that this is indeed the primary topic. GregorB (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Hatnote

Tuvixer, can you explain how the current hatnote does not violate WP:NAMB? GregorB (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It is up to you to prove that it does. ;) Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, since your edit summary was "this is not the case",[1] I thought you actually had a particular argument in mind. But no problem, here comes the counterargument... :-) The point of WP:NAMB is that it is necessary to provide hatnote disambiguation only if a reader who knows what he is looking for and is only provided with the article name has a reasonable chance of getting it wrong.

Two examples:

1. I'm looking for John Doe (footballer), but there is also John Doe (athlete). I may easily click on the latter, wrongly believing that's John Doe I'm looking for, so a hatnote is OK.
2. I'm looking for John Doe (footballer), but there is also John Doe (astronaut). Here, there is no reason to put a hatnote in either of the articles, because confusing the two simply by looking at article titles is highly unlikely.

Hatnotes are only necessary when they actually help the reader who is legitimatly confused, not the reader who doesn't have a clue what he's looking for. If that weren't true, all disambiguated articles would need to have hatnotes. GregorB (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ordinal numbering, yes or no?

Hello everybody, myself and User:Mewulwe are having difficulties reaching an agreement regarding the ordinal numbering of PM Tihomir Orešković. The discussion we had is located here. While I agree on his argument that ordinal numbering isn't in a established use in Croatia it still isn't a valid reason for it to be removed from Wikipedia since Wikipedia's idea is to enhance ones knowledge and not to restrain it. Furthermore, User:Mewulwe states that ordinal numbering should be removed from most articles on Wikipedia citing the numbering unpredictable in the future which is negligible since a probability of this occurring is extremely small. I found an explicit reference on the official web page of the Government of Croatia (check the last sentence with Google translate) which gives me the right to add this information. He is basically indirectly denying an official governmental document. Regards, Luke CroGamer 1 (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not denying an official document. The source would be perfectly valid for, say, the person's birth date, because that's an objective fact. The numbering is not. The probability is not "extremely small" that there will be a person being prime minister a second non-consecutive time, at which point the numbering will become ambiguous and it makes no sense to number the earlier ones when you have no objective way to number anyone beyond that point. You could use the earlier numbers in the respective article texts, but an infobox is supposed to hold only information applicable to all in its class. Mewulwe (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that the numbering isn't an objective fact in this particular case. Governmental documents are always objective (i.e. they don't represent a personal view). The government link I'm continuously mentioning will most likely be continuously updated since the title of it is "Former Governments" and it should be used as a legitimate reference. Even when a person is elected again after some time it will trigger a nationwide interest on this topic which would yield an answer fast. The government page will always display his/hers ordinal number (especially in the case with a non-consecutive term). Croatia had a case of 2 consecutive acting heads of states after the death of Franjo Tuđman and they didn't count. It's foolish to add this information in the text but not in the infobox. CroGamer 1 (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Such a numbering is inherently subjective, and a single government page, which might even have taken the number from Wikipedia, does not establish a widespread practice. That page might be changed or removed at any time. Mewulwe (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not even a valid argument. As I said time and again, widespread use on Wikipedia doesn't mean anything. The government MUST by law have records and posting false information is punishable by law. CroGamer 1 (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a perfectly valid argument. "True" or "false" doesn't apply to inherently subjective information. The government is free to use any arbitrary numbering system it wants. But only when it comes into more widespread use does it make sense to use it in infoboxes here. Mewulwe (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you please clarify it to me again what is Wikipedia? CroGamer 1 (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A compendium of notable facts. This does not include the random subjective choice made on a single government page. Mewulwe (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The information is correct and contains objective facts. It's illegal to post misinformation and detailed records exist in the countries archives. Why would a country lie about this? It's posted on a single page because of lack of established use and for these scenarios. Your point simply doesn't make any sense. I would have understood your concerns if I sourced this information from a single news media page. Your basically telling me the government serves false information and that I should trust what you say. You also said that it's OK to post this info in the text but now your negating yourself. CroGamer 1 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It is objective that he is the 11th prime minister of the Republic of Croatia (not of Croatia). You can use that in the text, but not in the infobox because it is not viable as a standardized element for future prime ministers. Subjective information is not misinformation, but it's not objective information. What counting method to use has nothing to do with "detailed records." Mewulwe (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles and I don't see that this situation will resolve itself soon so I wish to notify you that I will now file a request for WP:3. Regards CroGamer 1 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Short summary: User:Mewulwe states that ordinal numbering should be removed from some Wikipedia articles citing lack of established use in those states, that the numbering is untrustful in the future and that the numbering by itself is a subjective fact. I provided a link to an official government web page where the ordinal numbers are located (page in Croatian, disputed sentence is the last sentence on the mentioned page), explained that Wikipedia's idea is to expand knowledge (as an answer to his argument on lack of established use) and expressed disagreement that this information is subjective since I found a legitimate reference straight from the disputed government. CroGamer 1 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

3O Response: I've gone through a few leaders each for at least a dozen countries (see, for example, India, Angola, Egypt, Malta etc.) at Category:Lists of prime ministers and the practice of numbering seems very widespread, including with leaders who have served non-consecutive terms (they are counted once, with the number taken from their first term). This is also true for Croatia – former leaders seem also to use the numbering system espoused by the government website (and whoever made the list at Prime_Minister_of_Croatia#Prime_Ministers_of_the_Republic_of_Croatia_(1990–present)), with pre-1990 leaders instead being listed as "President(s) of the Executive Council of the Socialist Republic of Croatia". (A notable exception I found was Germany, likely because of reunification.) The benefit of numbering is probably when people who are not familiar with a country's history want to establish or keep track of a timeline. In any case, I'd leave the number in. The custom seems so entrenched that if you want to change things completely it would be best to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. If it's just Croatia you think should change, then I'd look for evidence that an alternative numbering is used often enough for things to be potentially confusing. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It is only widespread on Wikipedia, which is not an argument for perpetuating it. Those numbers originally only existed where there was actually a widespread practice (especially for U.S. presidents and certain other U.S. positions), then inevitably other editors thought "if those have numbers in the infobox, why not everyone?" and systematically applied this everywhere (first adding arbitrary numbers to the list articles, then applying these to the individual infoboxes), where it usually doesn't make any sense. It is not just the arbitrariness of the counting method, but often also the uncertainty and ambiguities of the underlying list. My exact view has long been uncontested in the relevant policy: [2]. Mewulwe (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Uncontested doesn't mean agreed. As far as I can tell this issue has been discussed in 2005, 2007/8, 2013, and 2017, which is when you added that paragraph. Discounting 2005, I'd say there's a consensus that we can't have our own counts but based on the approach in the 2013 discussion (and considering the handful of editors who wouldn't mind any agreed-upon numbering system), it seems a little fuzzier whether the criteria should be a well-established convention or any official count (in which case CroGamer 1's source might qualify). Personally, I'm not sure but until it's official either way we should preserve consistency with the other office-holders. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to offend User:Mewulwe but his viewpoint is (at least in my opinion) an insult to all of us who work our best to make Wikipedia great. I would have understood his viewpoint if I did the counting myself or located a source which is highly suspicious but since I found a very legitimate source I don't see a problem adding this info. I highly back User:ReconditeRodent's following statement: "Uncontested doesn't mean agreed" since Mewulwe's talk page is full of editors with this particular issue. Forgive me again if I offended you. CroGamer 1 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

People who want to add the numbers everywhere rarely show up to defend that position as policy. They'd have to do so and demonstrate a consensus against the policy as it stands. My talk page is full of editors who could not maintain a coherent argument against my position. But maybe some definite arbitration ruling will be needed. Mewulwe (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that an arbitration ruling should take place. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that you didn't take the appropriate steps after all this time. Regarding the consensus you mentioned, personally speaking, if the talk page is full of editors with the same question that should be categorized as a consensus IF a valid source is shown. CroGamer 1 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. People who agree with me obviously don't need to appear on my talk page, so you can't conclude anything from the dissenters who do. Mewulwe (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This is starting to become hilarious. Why can't your theory then be applied to my view? In other words, why isn't there any resistance to the numbering on other articles? Because people agree. Even more so, what gives you the right to just come to an article, delete something, start an edit war and ultimately win it by repeatedly reverting an edit? Talk pages exist for a reason. People just let you have it your way since they don't have the nerves. This doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with you. I'm pretty confident if someone pointed them to what information is missing that they will add it. Lack of information like this is hard to notice by most editors. CroGamer 1 (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the above-cited discussions from 2007 and 2013, which I wasn't even involved in, others have shared my position. Edit wars always have two sides, so I could just turn your question around. I'm always ready to talk. A subjective numbering on a government page without evidence of wider currency is barely "information" in an encyclopedic sense; it is rather misinformation in that it misleads the reader into assuming it is commonly used, like the U.S. presidents' numbers. Mewulwe (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

After reading again the discussions you mentioned an agreement has been reached in 2013 which supports my view. IF a valid source is shown the info should be added. Regarding the 2007/8 discussion, I'm not going to over repeat myself since you already know what my answer to this question is. An encyclopedia is a source of VALID information and not a place of conventional information. CroGamer 1 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In this case, only conventional information is valid information, because there is no objective truth to it. Only the convention itself is a relevant fact. And in the Croatian case, that one government page is just not enough to make a convention. Mewulwe (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I will file a case to WP:DRN tomorrow. I will inform you here when I filed it. CroGamer 1 (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I left a notice on your talk page CroGamer 1 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Information for other editors: based on current policy, the WP:DRN case has lead to the decision that there should be no ordinal numbering applied, unless there is consensus about a wiki-wide policy change on this issue. MrClog (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)