Talk:Michael of Zahumlje

Religion
Serbian Orthodox Christianity in 912.!!?? The split between Catholic and Orthodox church happened in 1054, and Serbian Orthodox Church was established in 1219. Furthermore, Višević participated at Synod in Split in 925 which was summoned by Pope from Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ro0103 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Mihailo Višević → — Mihailo Višević has 1.490 google hints (mostly mirrors Wikipedia content) while Michael of Zahumlje has 1.680 google hints. More important Mihailo Višević has 3 google book hints (all non-English), while Michael of Zahumlje has 8 google book hints (all English). Kebeta (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. On Google Books, I'm getting many more more results for Mihajlo Višević (with a j) than for Mihailo Višević or Mihailo of Zahumlje, even though many of these are not in English. Because it's difficult to judge from these meagre 'statistics', the advisable thing to do would prolly be to get the best sources of relatively recent date first and make your decision afterwards. Cavila (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right, on Google Books Mihajlo Višević has many more results than Mihailo Višević. Although, most of them are in Croatian language. Still, I think it would be best to move the article per WP:COMMONNAME (using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources). Kebeta (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In favour of Michael of Zachlumia. Regionalization of early medieval Slavic names is best avoided when possible (as in this case). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't mind to see Zachlumia instead, but the use of Zahumlje seems to be equally if not better established in English-language sources. Cavila (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Although this stuff is well outside my comfort zone, I've just made a stab at rewriting the (previously unreferenced) article. Some English-language sources seem to use 'Mihajlo', but the best and most useful sources I could lay my 'hands' on - well, mostly through Google Books - prefer Michael rather than the Slavic version. Cavila (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. Kebeta (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2010 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael of Zahumlje. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719060404/http://bsbdmgh.bsb.lrz-muenchen.de/dmgh_new/app/web?action=loadBook&bookId=00001080 to http://bsbdmgh.bsb.lrz-muenchen.de/dmgh_new/app/web?action=loadBook&bookId=00001080

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this actually a GA?
This page was nominated for a GA by User:Wüstenfuchs here, then received exactly one review from User:Wustefuchs (who later was tagged as sockpuppet by the nominator) here, and then was tagged as a GA by them even though the review was never closed properly and no one other than a sockpuppet of the nominator reviewed it.

Recently, a set of unregistered editors have been removing the GA tag on the grounds that the nomination was started by an editor now blocked for socking. While this alone is not a reason to remove it as the block took place 3 years after the nomination, so they were not evading any block at the time, and the IP address is evading a block according to Special:PermanentLink/1053892270, it looks like this page is not a GA as it never went through a real review and only had activity from a sockpuppet.

Anyone else agrees? If nobody objects, I will remove GA in 7 days or so. Naleksuh (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been any interest shown in this matter for many years now, or in the last few days mentioned here, and it's a fairly niche medieval topic, so I think you should instead use one of the processes described at Good article reassessment because they'll list the article in noticeboards which should help gather some more input. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed, let me try to do that now. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , the article appears to have been nominated by user  here, not Wüstenfuchs. While the user page of latter indicates they're a sock, no such tag exists for Kebeta.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Wuste(n)fuchs sockpuppetry is less relevant here, but the simple fact that the GAN was approved without any apparent criticism whatsoever merits a review, especially given a lot of other changes in the last ten years. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree the review does not appear very convincing. However neither lack of serious GAN review nor changes made since the review are justified causes for delisting. Theoretically, an editor could nominate an article and a reviewer might reasonably find it GACR compliant, and subsequent changes might be in line with GACR. I do not realistically expect that was what happened in this case. Nonetheless, there should be at least some actionable complaints (taking into consideration current GA criteria) as valid grounds to delist - any one of the significant ones should do (verifiability, relable sources, npov). I'm not saying someone will put their hand up and fix the article within a week, but still.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

this is good article since its inception
but the code for it, does not show up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.64.238.114 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It was delisted through a standard process. Please read the talk page section directly above. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)