Talk:Nicholas of Ilok

Requested move 4 January 2018

 * 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.

Not moved. There is a clear consensus against the proposed move, and substantial evidence that the current title is permissible. bd2412 T 03:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas of Ilok → Nicholas Újlaki – Most reliable sources dedicated to the subject prefer the suggested form. Such sources include, ; ; and Based on the evidence, we can conclude that the use of the Nicholas Újlaki form is independent of the ethnicity of the author and the most prestigious publishing houses (CUP, BRILL) prefer it. The present form - Nicholas of Ilok - is rarely used in recent historiography, and even some works using this form mention the suggested form as well. Borsoka (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As for the sources in English, there is a significant number of reliable sources preferring Nicholas of Ilok . In Hungarian sources, there is, of course, Újlaki, and in Croatian sources - Iločki. Ilok is the most common form in English for the town in Croatia; Újlak means nothing in English. The mere number of published sources, however, could not always be decisive.
 * As for the estates of Nicholas of Ilok, he had them in Hungary and in Slavonia as well. Slavonia is one of Croatian lands, inhabited mostly by Croats since 7th century. During many centuries, it had a separate status, being Banate of Slavonia (till 17th century) or Kingdom of Slavonia (17th-19th century) respectively. It mostly had the same administration with Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia. It was not part of the Kingdom of Hungary (proper), although it had the same king. Therefore, Nicholas of Ilok was Ban of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia. His family descended from Slavonia, so it can't be claimed only by Hungarians. --Silverije (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you read the list that you provided, you will realize that there is a travel guide (Fodor's Croatia) and two books originally published almost a hundred years ago (Essays on the Latin Orient, The Cambridge Medieval History Series) that use the Nicholas of Ilok form. Furthermore, one of the books using the same form prefers an other form (Nicholas of Újlak) which is similar to the one that I propose (Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages: A Cultural History). On the other hand, the list verifying the proposed form show that not only Hungarian authors, but British, American and Romanian scholars also prefer the proposed Nicholas Újlaki form ([]): Mureşanu, Jefferson and Heymann are not Hungarian scholars. Nobody stated that Újlaki was not a Slavonian nobleman. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Silverije, there was no "banate of Slavonia", but there was a title "ban of Slavonia", a dignity in the Hungarian royal court. The ban of Slavonia (mostly banus totius Sclavonie governed the whole Croatian lands until the 14th century. Slavonia itself was an integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary (administratively belonged to Hungarian county system) since Coloman's rule. Since the second half of the 14th century, there were parallel bans of Croatia(-Dalmatia) and Slavonia. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Can we have these two lists (i.e. lists of sources that use the current and the proposed name) so that we can compare them? GregorB (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your suggestion and please find below a table about the forms., , and , please feel free to provide further evidence substantiating the use of the present name (Nicholas of Ilok).
 * Please take into account, that when completing the below table
 * transaltions of primary sources were ignored, although all of them uses the Nicholas Újlaki form (For instance, the modern English translations of Pope Pius II's Europe and The Memoirs of Helene Kottanner.);
 * books published before 1945 were ignored (for instance, William Miller's Essays on the Latin Orient, that uses the Nicholas of Ilok form);
 * books using multiple forms were ignored (for instance, Ivo Perić mentions 3 forms - Nicholas Ilocki, Nicholas of Ilok and Nicholas Uylaki - in A history of the Croats);
 * books using the Nicholas of Újlak form were ignored (for instance, the book A History of the Crusades: The Impact of the Crusades on Europe, edited by Kenneth M. Setton, Harry W. Hazard, Norman P. Zacour).Borsoka (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Before making a decision, administrators are to check all the sources that are not available on the internet, whether they use only one variation of Nicholas' name or more of them. --Silverije (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Nicholas Újlaki" (with quotation marks) gives 39 book results on Google. If I counted correctly, 15 of those are about a 20th century professor who also has the name Nicholas Újlaki. "Nicholas of Ilok" gives 23 book results. So I wouldn't say that sources prefer the name "Nicholas Újlaki" over "Nicholas of Ilok" for this nobleman. Tzowu (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would really appreciate if you could expand the list in the above table, because there are few books verifying the present form (Nicholas of Ilok). Borsoka (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Ottoman Threat..." doesn't only use the form "Nicholas Ujlaki": "It is very probable that the news of the Moldavian prince's victory arrived in Rome before 31 March 1475, and it was most likely delivered by Nicolas of Ujlak (Ilok)" (p. 154) Tzowu (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On the same page, it uses the Nicolas Ujlaki form (link added in the table): Collaborator of John Hunyadi and an acquaintance of John Capistrano, Nicolas Ujlaki.... Borsoka (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Nicholas Újlaki" Ujlaki means from Ilok in Hungarian, and this is primarly wikipedia on english language. In english, town name is Ilok, not something else, as mentioned before. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please remember that the present discussion is about the name of a medieval nobleman, not about the name of a town. Borsoka (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's about medieval nobleman whose "surname" is name of a town. As this is english wiki, that part is on english, not on Croatian (Iločki) or Hungarian (Újlaki). It's very simple. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If we accepted your logic, we should move Elizabeth Báthory to Elizabeth of Nyírbátor, because the village for which her family was named is now known as Nyírbátor and the "-i/y" is a Hungarian suffix. Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Nicholas of Ilok" is a well-established name in historiography, including the Budapest-based Central European University and its Department of Medieval Studies (Annual of Medieval Studies, 1995, p.85): "Nicholas of Ilok (Miklos Ujlaki, Nikola Ilocki) repeatedly invited Capistrano to Ilok so that he might receive proper care." ; cf. Historical Abstracts: Modern history abstracts, 1450-1914, vol. 49, 3-4; American Bibliographical Center, Clio, 1998: "Furthermore, the town enjoyed the protection of a powerful baronial family, whose most ambitious member, Nicholas of Ilok (d. 1477), voivode of Transylvania, was crowned king of Bosnia." Bojovnik (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: And there are a dozen of historical works published by the Cambridge University Press, Brill and other prestigious publishing houses which prefer the Újlaki form. Borsoka (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2018 (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.