Talk:Mstislav I of Kiev

Error in line of succession

The article says his successor is Vladimir II Mstislav...but when you click on the link, it goes to Vladimir III Mistislav.

There were two previous Vladimir (Vladimir I of Kiev, aka Vladimir the Great, the best known) and Vladimir II Monomakh. So it is likely that the right numbering is Vladimir III, so I'm changing it here rather than on Vladimir III's main page.

Requested move

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Mstislav I of Kiev → Mstislav the GreatMstislav the Great – Similliar to Vladimir the Great, Peter the Great. Alphasinus (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support per the reasoning above. GreyHood ^Talk 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment. No evidence has been given that he is commonly referred to as "the Great". A layman's search of google books shows 426 results for "Mstislav I", compared to 108 for "Mstislav the Great". Jenks24 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2011 (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.

Vandalism by Dr. Kay

On January 20, I carefully added ancestry diagrams to articles about this historic royal family, each neither adding nor removing any sources but mentioning in a note that each chart is derived from that of a family member and thus sourced to whatever sourced that existing chart. The point of those (quite laborious) edits was to provide a graphical summary of information elsewhere in each article and in linked articles, and to provide easy navigation between family members many of whom are notable enough historical figures to have their own articles.

In response, User:DrKay, a rapidly promoted editor, deleted all the charts the next day citing trivial issues (such as some copied source references triggering automated syntax warnings or a claim that I was somehow "using Wikipedia as a source" rather then copying content while preserving the actual sources) and a baseless accusation that this was "excessive trivial details" All without giving actual honest reasons for deleting so many lines of wikitext. This seems like pure vandalism, though to avoid edit wars I am not going to revert him without discussion here. Those wishing to discuss this should look at the charts in the page history and the tone of Dr. Kay's "edit summary" Jbohmdk (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

As previously noted, including by you ("This is somewhat uncertain, from mentions in the articles of the linked ancestors"), these tables are unsourced, poorly sourced, disputed, incomplete, trivial, undue weight, and/or misleading. Your edit also introduced reference errors, placing the article in Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. Your accusation of vandalism is baseless. DrKay (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)