Talk:Stefan Vladislav/Archive 1

Rename

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Stephen Vladislav I of Serbia → Stefan Vladislav –

As per Gbooks: "Stephen Vladislav" 23 hits vs. "Stefan Vladislav" 80. In Serbian, his name is "Stefan Vladislav" (Стефан Владислав), with 67 hits. 21st c. sources are also in favour of "Stefan Vladislav". The of Serbia is redundant, Primary topic of "Stefan/Stephen Vladislav" is this person.--Z oupan 20:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as per above rationale.--Z oupan 20:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as per Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies usage. Also note: if you exclude all wikipedia based books, there isn't a single hit for "Stephen Vladislav I", much less with the Of Serbia part. To Zoupan, good proposal but you already voted by proposing the move, you don't need a separate support line (according to WP:RM: "Nominators should not add a separate support !vote, as the nomination itself qualifies as a !vote. Nominators may, of course, make comments and otherwise participate in the discussion.") SLawsonIII (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Both the regnal number (if he has any) and the name of the kingdom where he reigned over should be included, as per NCROY. Reigen (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per #3 WP:NCROY. I don't think this monarch is well known enough by just his name alone (like Elizabeth II, Napoleon) to have the state ruled over removed. - dwc lr (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: to all above, thanks for directing me to WP:NCROY. But it doesn't seem to apply in this case.  Point 2 of NCROY says "Some monarchs have a name by which they are clearly most commonly known (in English), such as a cognomen, their first name, or some other name, and which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title" and this clearly takes precedence over Point 3 where we have to add numbers and country.  My reading, please correct if I'm off, is that if they have a clear common name which identifies them unambiguously, they get that.  This cat certainly seems to pass that test.  He is referred to consistently as simply "Stefan Vladislav" with no modifiers.  There's another Stefan Vladislav, but that one is commonly known with those modifiers. It is unambiguous and clearly most commonly known simply as that.  No thorn in anyone's side, but if he has a clear and near universal usage of his name why would NCROY point 3 come into play? Thanx. SLawsonIII (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just using his name alone is not that common and he is certainly not anywhere near as well known to English speakers than the famous examples listed in Point 2. A lot of the sources seem to use something like “Serbian king Stefan Vladislav” or “King Stefan Vladislav” - dwc lr (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the individual's notability really a criteria? The person is mostly known as "Stefan Vladislav" - hence in line with #2.--Z oupan 02:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He is not most well known as simply by just a name, the title 'King' or note 'Serbian king' is commonly added by sources, so 'of Serbia' is still relevant for the article name in accordance with naming conventions. Just his name alone is too vague of a title. - dwc lr (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: His monarchial name was Stefan Vladislav, and he was the only "Vladislav" to have ruled Serbia. He signed himself „Stefan Vladislav u Hrista blagoverni kralj". There was another Vladislav who was of the same dynasty that ruled Syrmia in the 1320s, descending from Stefan Vladislav's brother Stefan Uroš. Thus he does not have any regnal number; only a numismatic work uses numbers for disambiguation between the two in English (still, it is taken care of with a hatnote) - the article name of Stefan Vladislav II of Syrmia should be changed also (these are the only Stefan Vladislav's, Stefan itself is a honorific). See my draft on the article. As per Sovereigns #2, the article name should be "Stefan Vladislav".

Some Gbook hits for this person:


 * "Stefan Vladislav" (85+27)
 * "Стефан Владислав [without number]" (27+)
 * King Stefan Vladislav (11)
 * Stefan Vladislav, King of Serbia (1)
 * Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies
 * The New Encyclopaedia Britannica
 * Konstantin Jireček
 * Serbian Academy


 * "Stephen Vladislav" (25)
 * Stephen Vladislav, King of Serbia (6)
 * King Stephen Vladislav (3)
 * George Ostrogorsky 1969


 * "Vladislav" (53+)
 * Vladislav, King of Serbia (20)
 * Владислав, краљ српски (14)
 * Vladislav, Serbian king (7)
 * "Владислав Немањић" (8)
 * "King Vladislav Nemanjic" (3)
 * John Van Antwerp Fine indexed as "Vladislav of Serbia"


 * "Stefan Vladislav I" (8+18)
 * "Стефан Владислав I" (18)

--Z oupan 05:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per common name and great reasoning by Zoupan. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 12:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Close paraphrasing concerns
Zoupan has done a marvellous job expanding the article, but I am very concerned about close paraphrasing found in the article. I am referring to the section dealing with his accession. Here is the original text, found in John Van Antwerp Fine Jr.'s The late medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the late twelfth century to the Ottoman Conquest:

"Archbishop Sava, not part of the plot against Radoslav, was unhappy, but he eventually agreed to crown Vladislav. Then, upset by the dissensions among his nephews, Sava abdicated, taking a pilgrimage to Palestine. On his way home in 1235, Sava died during a visit to the Bulgarian court. The Bulgarians then buried him with honor in Trnovo. By this time Vladislav was married to John Asen's daughter Belisava. Their marriage seems to have occurred after Vladislav's coronation. As relations were fairly cordial between the two states, the Serbs were able, after a series of requests, to persuade the Bulgarians to return Sava's body. It was then buried in the monastery of Milesevo, built by Vladislav. Sava was soon canonized and his relics worked many miracles. His cult was to remain important throughout the rest of the medieval and Turkish periods."

Here is what the article says:

"Archbishop Sava had not taken part in the plot, and was unhappy of the circumstances, but eventually agreed to crown Vladislav as King of Serbia. Sava had became upset by the discord among his nephews and abdicated, and began a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1229. On his way home from a trip he had begun in 1234, Sava died during a visit to the Bulgarian court in 1235, and was respectfully buried at Tarnovo (Holy Forty Martyrs Church) by the Bulgarians. Vladislav had married Beloslava (or Belisava), the daughter of Ivan Asen II, after his coronation. Due to fairly cordial relations between Serbia and Bulgaria, the Serbs managed to return Sava's body after a series of requests. Sava's body was then buried in the Mileševa monastery, built by Vladislav in 1234. Sava was canonized and his relics were miraculous; his cult remained important throughout the Middle Ages and the Ottoman occupation."

Close paraphrasing is a serious issue, and it took me a few warnings about it to learn how to avoid it. If you are not able to rephrase it appropriately, you should find another source and cite it alongside Fine. Surtsicna (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Full Style
Should his full style be reincluded? "King of all the Rascian Lands and Diocleia and Dalmatia and Travunia and Zachlumia, King of all the Serbian and Maritime Lands" --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is found under .--Z oupan 04:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Stefan Vladislav
Please refrain from adding of Serbia, as this person is the primary topic, and is best known by this name only (NCROY #2, and not #3). Take a look at other rulers and you will see that a title is in no way needed.--Z oupan 16:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from moving pages against consensus. You proposed the move last year and did not gain consensus. As I said, the same rationale would apply to Louis XIV, Béla IV, Henry VIII, Alfonso XIII, Haakon VII, Frederick IX, etc; but it does not. Please use RM if you believe the community is now in favour of the move. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But not to Category:Byzantine emperors or Category:Ottoman dynasty, Alexander Jagiellon, Hugh Capet, Harald Hardrada, Godred Olafsson, Hugh Magnus and others?--Z oupan 04:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move 2

 * 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. bd2412 T 20:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Vladislav of Serbia → Stefan Vladislav – Still, Stefan Vladislav is the best name, also according to Gbook search hits found for this person. It is used by such as Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Konstantin Jireček, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and others. An important fact also needing to take into account is the signification of Stefan in the Serbian monarchy, which is found in the article. Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC) --Z oupan 04:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Z oupan  04:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are other important issues here. Five days ago this article was renamed from Stephen Vladislav I of Serbia to Stefan Vladislav (diff). This renaming was contested, but instead to restore original name User:Surtsicna:
 * renamed this article to Stefan Vladislav of Serbia (without I).
 * move warred (diff) when their move was contested (diff)
 * demanded that other editor should start RM to rename this article, also pointing to the previous RM discussion which actually supported the original name (with I)
 * without applying the same principle for their move which was also contested
 * I think that before proceeding with this move request the original name of this article should be restored.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. This move fifteen days ago was incorrectly undone a few hours later and incorrectly moved the article to an undiscussed - and contentious - name. José Luiz talk 01:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Agree: I'm looking at this and comparing it to other articles of monarchs on Wikipedia. First off we have Elizabeth II, which is called this because she is the Queen of many countries, not just the United Kingdom therefore it'd be inappropriate to call her "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" because she is also queen of Canada, Australia, NZ ect. Then we have Harald V of Norway, the title is called this because there have been Many King Harolds throughout European History, therefore we have "of Norway" to disambiguate from all the other Harolds in European History.  Now with Stefan Vladislav of Serbia, the only country to have a King called "Stefan Vladislav" is Serbia, therefore there isn't necessarily a reason to have the "of Serbia" at the end of the title. It isn't as if our readers and audiences are going to get confused by an article titled "Stefan Vladislav" because no other country has had a King by this name. My only small issue is Vladislav, King of Syrmia who also goes by the name of "Stefan Vladislav II". So calling him "Stefan Vladislav of Serbia", disambiguates him from "Stefan Vladislav II of Syrmia". Before anyone starts, yes I know Syrmia was a Serbian Kingdom but it wasn't a Kingdom of Serbia. Also, if there is a longer more complete name, then we are advised to use it. However overall, I'm tempted to say agree. IJA (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. My suggestion is that instead we set up a two-way DAB at Stefan Vladislav. Our goal here is the general reader experience, and for many searching for Stefan Vladislav (or even Stefan Vladislav of Serbia, see below), it's likely that the information that there are two possibilities is the very first thing they want to know. Andrewa (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. A hatnote already takes care of it, plus I quote from the article: "is scarcely indexed as "Stefan Vladislav I" in some modern sources to disambiguate from the later Vladislav, son of Dragutin, who ruled Syrmia."--Z oupan 04:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose See WP:NCROY. I actually opposed moving her article to the unqualified "Elizabeth II", but even supporters of this move tended to argue that she was a special case.  We have several articles where the "of Country x" is technically redundant, but we keep it for reasons of consistency, clarity etc., e.g. Henry VIII of England, Louis XVI of France, James V of Scotland. PatGallacher (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Makes the title much less recognizable.  Either "King" or "of Serbia" must be there.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Further to my suggestion re the DAB, Stefan Vladislav of Serbia could point either to the DAB directly or to this article or remain the title of this article. If it either remains the title or points here, then we need a hatnote obviously. I can argue for any of these, I'd slightly prefer the first option, to point Stefan Vladislav of Serbia to the DAB and rename this article (back) to Stefan Vladislav I of Serbia, but there's a POV risk in each. This seems unavoidable.

The DAB should link to Vladislav, King of Syrmia by its current title, noting (but not linking to) his alternative name as Stefan Vladislav II of Serbia. Andrewa (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2013 (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.