This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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.
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.--Zoupan 20:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Support as per above rationale.--Zoupan 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#Sovereigns. 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)
Comment: to all above, thanks for directing me to WP:NCROY#Sovereigns. 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.--Zoupan 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".
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.
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)
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's New Spy (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from adding of Serbia, as this person is the primary topic, and is best known by this name only (Wikipedia:NCROY#Sovereigns #2, and not #3). Take a look at other rulers and you will see that a title is in no way needed.--Zoupan 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)
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.
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) --Zoupan 04:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Zoupan 04:58, 15 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."--Zoupan 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)
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 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.
"and Khan Bata (the grandson of Genghis Khan)" - link to Batu Khan, and perhaps call him Batu in this article, since that's what the Wikipedia article on him calls him.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Fixed Khan Bata→Batu Khan.--Zoupan 18:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The following sentences are stand-alone, and thus should be merged into a paragraph: "Jireček thought that Vladislav lived in Skadar." and "Vladislav died in ca. 1269 and was buried in Mileševa." The first sentence is also fragmentary, and should be expanded.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
In Accession, one sentence says "some of his nobility revolted in fall 1233." - Because many readers may be in the southern hemisphere, where seasons are the opposite of those in the north, a term such as "late 1233" might be a better word choice. If a month range is given in sources, perhaps use that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The "Personality" section has only one sentence, so the section should be deleted and the content moved into another section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
"Note that, as Vladislav ruled from 1233 to 1243 and died after 1264, the flag predates the time of the description." - this should have a citation as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Removed unnecessary (obvious) observation.--Zoupan 18:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)