Talk:Miloš Obrenović, Prince of Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Abdication

Why did he abdicate in favour of a son who was out of consciousness? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Name

The Common name is Miloš Obrenović; compare "Miloš Obrenović" (70+) "Miloš Obrenović I" (18); "Милош Обреновић" (157) vs. "Милош Обреновић I" (20).--Zoupan 07:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2023

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: moved to Miloš Obrenović, Prince of Serbia. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 11:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Miloš Obrenović I of Serbia → Miloš Obrenović – What we have here is a very clunky title that's formatted to sound official but as someone from the region, I've only heard of this person referred to as Miloš Obrenović or simply Knez (Prince) Miloš in both history books and common parlance (I've been to a caffee named Knez Miloš in Kragujevac). I'd argue that using simply Miloš Obrenović is the common name. Alternatively, I could accept a format like Miloš Obrenović, Prince of Serbia. That's the format used by Alexander Karađorđević, Prince of Serbia. Princes of Serbia have inconsistent titles. His two sons have completely different styles. We have the simple Mihailo Obrenović and a Milan Obrenović II, Prince of Serbia. The other Milan Obrenović was later crowned king so fewer issues there. I decided against lumping together multiple pages in the requested move because I find it more prudent to discuss options with other editors to find the most appropriate style. I'd urge any joining editor to consider the fact that surnames are commonly used when discussing Serbian monarchs and here we have some ordinals that are a) rarely if ever used when discussing these figure and b) counterintuitive to begin with because they signify the order of succession within the dynasty. Killuminator (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• oppose per WP:SOVEREIGN—blindlynx 20:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  • sorry didn't realize he wan't a sovereign—blindlynx 00:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • How does the current title follow this naming convention? It liberally combines different guidelines to produce this outcome. Other Princes of Serbia likewise have completely different article names. --Killuminator (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Time to end the trend towards the erasure of kingdoms in monarch's titles. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  • He was the head of a principality, not a kingdom. --Killuminator (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

    The trend is towards removing kingdoms, much less removing principalities. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as proposed. However, I find this title problematic. First of all, ngrams shows no results for "Miloš Obrenović I" [1], which makes me question where he even used the numeral. Second, the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}" is to be used for kings, queens, emperors and empress regnant. This articles subject was not a king or emperor, but rather a sovereign prince. The title therefore does not follow WP:SOVEREIGNS #5: European monarchs whose rank is below that of king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". So, while I oppose this move I would support a move to "Miloš Obrenović, Prince of Serbia". Estar8806 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• • That's an alternative I proposed and it's the title of the sole Karađorđević Prince of Serbia. --Killuminator (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

    I would support that move, but I would not support a move to the title directly proposed. I can't find evidence of the usage of the numeral and it doesn't follow NCROY. Estar8806 (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support. "Miloš Obrenović I" is a wiki-invention and there was no Miloš Obrenović II. Complete misapplication of NCROY. Srnec (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support some move: either Miloš Obrenović or Miloš Obrenović, Prince of Serbia. The current title is incorrect on several levels (he is never referred to as I since there was no II, and we normally include "Prince" for such rulers, don't we). Should we opt for the latter, his son Mihailo Obrenović should follow suit. No such user (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you make of his other son? That one has issues as well. --Killuminator (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You mean, those regnal numbers invented out of thin air?. I suppose it's best to stick to WP:SOVEREIGNS #5 and have Miloš Obrenović, Prince of Serbia; Mihailo Obrenović, Prince of Serbia; Milan I Obrenović, Prince of Serbia. Now, what about the first king in the dynasty, Milan of Serbia – he's the one commonly referred to as "Milan II Obrenović"? But that's probably out of scope of this RM. No such user (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.