Talk:Peter Krešimir IV

message: The article should be referenced completely. Anyone who can arse himself to do some research (books) to back up all the claims in this WikiText, should present the results here.  Er-vet-en (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two sources that indicate his family, one, from Sisic who mentions Hicela as Kresimir mother and Stjepan I (from Kresimirovic), the other one implies that "Stjepan" (Stjepan Svetoslavić), son of Suronja married Hicela, which opens up a allegation that Hicela is Zvonimir's mother. Paradox. I'm letting someone else to clear this up since I'm tired of constantly reverting myself... Er-vet-en (say) 19:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and family 

message: In this article, first it says:
:‘In November 1075., the Norman Count Amico invaded Croatia...  he allegedly did manage to capture the Croatian king himself’
then it says:
:Zvonimir deposed him and he died in a Norman prison during the first half of 1074.[12]
There are two things that are not right here:
# the Normans invaded in 1075, captured the king, and then the king dies in captivity in 1074
# the Normans allegedly managed to capture the kind... but then we know he died in captivity. So how is it allegedly?
Someone needs to seriously clean up this article, I can only guess what other horrible mistakes it carries...
--Gcsaba2 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something's not right... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511133045/http://www.crotouristica.com/en/Sibenik.adeo to http://www.crotouristica.com/en/Sibenik.adeo
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120013412/http://www.solin.hr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=192 to http://www.solin.hr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=192
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no clear consensus for the proposal, as the arguments for and against are both strong and valid, and the votes are evenly split. The policy and guideline support for the proposal is countered by the convention and consistency arguments against it. The common name and concision arguments for the proposal are countered by the recognisability and navigation arguments against it. The discussion also shows that some participants are unaware or dissatisfied with the RfC that changed the WP:NCROY guideline, and that some participants are concerned about the other Croatian rulers who are not part of the proposal. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So no argument at all. Impressive. Surtsicna (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like the title of a movie series, no indication is a person or sovereign. It is not helpful, reduces recognizability and thus a disserve to our readers.  Is that argument enough? Walrasiad (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing about "Trpimir II of Croatia" indicates that he was a sovereign either. John VIII of Constantinople was not a sovereign. If the goal is to clearly define the subject in the article title, we should have it titled "Trpimir II, king of Croatia". But it is not the job of the article title to define the subject. WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is not about people learning from the title who the subject was. It is about people familiar with Trpimir II recognizing that the article titled Trpimir II is about Trpimir II. WP:RECOGNIZABILITY: "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Rosbif73, please note that point 5 of WP:SOVEREIGN says "whose rank is below that of king and whose plain common name is ambiguous". Trpimir I is unambiguous. Muncimir is the only person in history to be called Muncimir, so arguably nobody qualifies for WP:SINGLENAME better than him :) Surtsicna (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, I misread point 5. I've struck my opposition for Trpimir I, though I do think that, procedurally speaking, it would have been better to consider Muncimir separately given his absence of ordinal and the need to assert SINGLENAME as well as SOVEREIGN. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

text: The proposed names are not shorthand for anything. They are the unambiguous, guideline-supported common names. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Nobody looking for Peter Krešimir IV will be hampered if the article about him is called Peter Krešimir IV. Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If can add, it is really annoying constantly to have edit out the "of Croatia" (or else) when making wikilinks in text, and there's no hampering of navigation when in the search can be seen short description (which editors sometimes forget to edit or make it more concise for faster navigation).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I understand the sentiment, Srnec. I proposed having a separate discussion about the titles of articles about the other Croatian rulers because I believe they should be moved but am not quite sure where. Tomislav of Croatia is actually a far worse title than Trpimir II of Croatia because the former may equally refer to any other Tomislav from Croatia. That is why we no longer have titles such as John of England. To sum up, "of Croatia" should be loped off from all of the titles, but in a few cases it needs to be replaced with something else, something actually disambiguatory. Interestingly enough, the concision vs consistency debate is addressed at WP:CONSISTENT itself. Surtsicna (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: First and final relist, as the “supporters” of the move have provided reasonable arguments for why it should be moved, while the “opposers” have not provided reasonable arguments for why it should not be moved. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Croatia has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject European history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That "Foo of Country" convention was always in contravention of the WP:AT policy, which is why it was constantly challenged and eventually changed after a two-month-long RfC. The RfC closer found "a strong consensus" for the change, and to imply otherwise now is hardly fair play. The proposed moves are in line not just with what WP:NCROY says but also what WP:AT policy says. Surtsicna (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, I don't think you or anyone else in that RFC did anything "wrong", nor do I fault the closer of that RFC.  You're absolutely correct that the current version of NCROY supports the move, and at the end of the day naming conventions are just that - conventions, either style is ultimately valid.  But the fact remains I don't agree with the outcome and didn't know about that RFC at the time.  Just as the guideline changed in 2023, it could potentially change again, and if another RFC were held, I'd support a revision.  SnowFire (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  @SnowFire I didn't know about the RFC either and am also appalled at the outcome  I would definitely support a revision. Walrasiad (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 December 2023