After updating the "Operational Due Diligence" page (I expanded the list of professional services firms from just KPMG to all the big4) I then reviewed the history of the page and I noticed that the original article did include all four big4 firms. But the first edit to the original page reduced the example list to just KPMG. This edit was performed from a KPMG IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
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: moved as per alternative proposal. In that no-one speaks I've done it. The merge can be discussed further if anyone wishes to propose it, but at least the capitalisation is fixed. Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Matches the formatting of related article titles. relisting see below Andrewa (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Tony(talk) 02:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Support Nothing specific about this title – it's all but generic. --Ohconfucius¡digame! 02:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Have you guys looked at the target page? There's a more substantial and long-standing article there. This isn't a situation for a page move, unless there's something I'm missing... -GTBacchus(talk) 15:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Relisting, I think we'll probably end up with some sort of move proposal as part of the solution. Good that the issue has finally attracted some attention. Andrewa (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This RM should be closed – there is nothing that needs to be moved. It seems pretty clear that the two articles should be merged and the resultant article should end up at Operational due diligence. Jenks24 (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead please, Jenks. Tony(talk) 07:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
But is anybody actually arguing to move this weaker article on top of the stronger one? What's the point keeping a dead RM open? I like to clear dead wood out of the backlog, when possible. If nobody wants this move, I'm going to close the discussion, unless there's a good reason to leave it open. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:17, 30 September 2011 (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.