Talk:Srettha Thavisin

Prepare for splitting?

The Wikipedia article on Srettha Thavisin has seen recent growth due to the addition of new content. This expansion prompts me to question regarding the section titled “Srettha Thavisin#Prime Minister of Thailand (2023–present)”. The query is whether this section is disproportionately large or if it receives undue emphasis in his biography entry. My concern arises from the fact that this particular section takes up a substantial part of this article. Given the likelihood of future expansion, my question is whether there should be a consensus on the need to prepare for splitting the content. Thank you. Bossza007 Here (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that most of the section around his premiership should be split into Premiership of Srettha Thavisin as seen in other articles for Prime Ministers like Kier Starmer: Premiership of Keir Starmer. Arthur Taksin (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

How about first start with trimming out the content that is not related to the PM. For example "The government has shown renewed interest in enhancing transportation through the Strait of Malacca via the Kra Isthmus. " doesn't belong on this article or another split. This article is not Thailand current events, and should only be things directly attributable to the subject. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Now that Srettha's premiership has ended, I think we should now split his premiership into a separate page while some of his policies (such as the digital wallet handout) get their own pages. But do we have to have like a vote to split or can we just create a new page now? Arthur Taksin (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as no one has voiced any opposition, you should feel free to go ahead and create a new article if you want. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I am currently working on a separate page that can be seen on my sandbox page: User:Arthur Taksin/sandbox - Wikipedia Arthur Taksin (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I heartily agree with the need for editing. Much of the discussion of particular initiatives reads like a press release following a meeting or public event. Not only that, but it covers every meeting or trip he took; if his Presidency had lasted more than a few months the article would be unimaginably long. I did some light editing of the article to change present perfect to past tense where appropriate, but left the press release blah blah largely untouched.

My suggestion: consolidate all the meetings he took about electric cars, tourism, free trade agreements, etc. into one paragraph apiece, rather than treat them separately country by country. Then go to the discussions of education, cannabis, etc. and boil down the discussion into something closer to a narrative covering what he attempted, what he did and what he accomplished, rather than just a collection of sentences reflecting different newspaper articles. RootlessIrishman (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• I currently oppose a split unless there is a policy reason for it, such as WP:TOOLARGE. Does this policy apply here? I think instead the article could be trimmed. We need to follow WP:10YT and if this subject was only PM for a short time period, ten years later do we really care enough to have two articles? Sure, if the subject returns to notability relating to the time as PM, then we can consider it them. Right now it appears to be a bit of naval gazing and I dont see any good reason for a content fork. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Jtbobwaysf: WP:FORK and WP:SIZESPLIT indicate that this should certainly split. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I see at xtools 6900 words thus WP:SIZESPLIT isnt met. The WP:FORK argument is what exactly? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If splitting off his entire premiership is wrong, then I think instead we should just split off his two main policies (soft power and digital wallet scheme) into their own, broader articles. Arthur Taksin (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not wrong per se, it's just that there are differing opinions on the matter. The relevant guideline section is under WP:SPINOFF: "The main situation where spinoff articles become necessary is when the expansion of a section creates an undue weight problem for the article." The subject has had a significant business career spanning decades. It doesn't make sense to fill 90% of his biographical article with details on his one-year premiership. I agree with Jtbobwaysf that the article is currently filled up with insignificant routine coverage, which should be trimmed down. But personally, I'd support having premiership articles separate from the person as a general matter, regardless of article size concerns, since ideally they would cover policy matters that pertain to the entire administration as a whole, not just the subject personally.

As for those individual policies, they would be good candidates for stand-alone articles. I'd note that there's already a National Soft Power Strategy Committee article, which could be rewritten to better explain the policy in context. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

We certainly dont need two articles that are titles of the subjects jargon or some sort of proposed agenda (unless this is later notably followed by another PM or group and becomes notable as a standalone). I think that Paul makes a good point in that too much weight is given on this article to the subject's short tenure as PM. This is a compelling argument and is based on policy. I support a split based on that assuming the article is first trimmed. Please do trimming first to get rid of all the puffery and UNDUE content. In the end this will remain a BLP and is not a coatrack for everything that was proposed during the subject's tenure. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with trimming the article, especially the very large section on foreign affairs when a page on his international visits exists. Are there any other specific sections you would say need to be trim. Arthur Taksin (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think anything that is not attributable to the subject (the person) should not be there. This sort of loose association content 'the PMs office proposed', 'the pm proposed', 'Thavisin proposed', is all quite general and probably not even due. We would want to see deep coverage in the RS (could be english or Thai language) on some issues the subject actually truly pushed for, if such existed. The issue here is that this article somehow becomes a coatrack for government proposals during that timeframe, which while maybe due on some other article, shouldn't be on a BLP. Maybe we can follow the Thai article a bit as it might have some better understanding of what the subject actually stood for (if such thing existed). But the positions of his administration without direct attribution to the BLP subject I think are UNDUE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I cleaned out of lot of stuff. Please do not re-add content to this article that is not WP:BLP in nature. The content should state something that is actually tied to this person, not the previous history of Thailand. A lot of WP:UNDUE content has been added seeking to summarize, or possibly WP:SYNTH into some sort of position for the PM or imply a change of position. If we dont have sources for the stuff, just leave it out. General Thailand politics content can be covered on other articles. Can someone help with one or two sentences to summarize for (MOS:LEAD) his time as prime minster? What was he notable for? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Really impressive what you've done. I was just wondering if maybe the lead should maybe be extended by 2 or 3 sentences to describe what he did in office. I've seen on other pages on people who serve short terms as leaders (like Liz Truss), and I wondered that since they included few sentences on their premiership, should this page also? Arthur Taksin (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oh actually ignore this, I didn't see your last sentence which I will do. Arthur Taksin (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, looks great. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hi, this Srettha_Thavisin#Foreign_affairs (aka travels) already has a sub-article List_of_international_prime_ministerial_trips_made_by_Srettha_Thavisin, so lets summarize this section down to one or two paragraphs. We can focus on something that is notable during his travels. Probably the 5 pictures in one section is not in compliance with policy as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Assessment - B-Class article

B-class review

1. It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation:

2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes:

3. It has a defined structure:

4. It is reasonably well-written:

5. It contains supporting materials where appropriate:

6. It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

JoeNMLC (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)