Talk:Constantine Diogenes
 | Constantine Diogenes has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 15, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Constantine Diogenes appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 February 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Constantine Diogenes (died 1032) → Constantine Diogenes – Full WP:RM request after declined speedy move. The early 11th-century general is by far the most notable bearer of the name: he was active in several campaigns against the Bulgarians, served as commander-in-chief in the Balkans, defeated the Pechenegs, was involved in two conspiracies and was father of emperor Romanos IV. By comparison his grandson, Constantine Diogenes (son of Romanos IV), was a very minor figure who is notable chiefly as the son of an emperor. Constantine ✍ 18:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- NOTE this article was moved from Constantine_Diogenes to Constantine_Diogenes_(died_1032) in September, and replaced with a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page was moved from Constantine_Diogenes to Constantine_Diogenes_(disambiguation) just a few days ago, and the resulting redirect was repointed here. Should this proposal fail, I suggest the disambiguation page be returned to the base location, because if this article requires parenthetical disambiguation, it indicates ambigousness. If it doesn't then it carries a hatnote to the dismabiguation page and does not itself carry parenthetical disambiguation. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support move and with only one other meaning we do not need a disambiguation page. PatGallacher (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support, and yes, we don't need a DAB page, just use a hatnote to distinguish them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--Zoupan 00:35, 19 November 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Constantine Diogenes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 06:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
About time we got round to one of your historical namesakes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed :). Pity there isn't more to go on, this will be one of my shortest GAs... Thanks for taking the time, and looking forward to the review. Constantine ✍ 15:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Toolbox checks -- no dab/EL issues.
Prose/structure/content -- no issues remaining AFAIC but pls let me know if any probs with my copyedit.
Images -- licensing looks good.
Referencing -- reliably/formatting looks good.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Ian and thanks for your edits. They look fine to me and have definitely improved the prose. Any further comments, or suggestions above and beyond GA requirements? Constantine ✍ 09:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Despite the article's brevity, I didn't find myself asking questions or particularly wishing for more, perhaps because the narrative flowed quite naturally from his early career to his death, and as someone who sometimes struggles to get detailed articles out subjects that only date back to World War II, I'm appreciative that we even have this much info on Mr Diogenes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- OK then, thanks a lot again! Best, Constantine ✍ 10:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Despite the article's brevity, I didn't find myself asking questions or particularly wishing for more, perhaps because the narrative flowed quite naturally from his early career to his death, and as someone who sometimes struggles to get detailed articles out subjects that only date back to World War II, I'm appreciative that we even have this much info on Mr Diogenes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)