Talk:Operational due diligence

Dirty tricks?

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 145.62.32.131 (talk • contribs)

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: 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)

---

Operational Due Diligence → Operational due diligence –

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)
  • Oppose. No, there's nothing you're missing, unless perhaps the discussion at Talk:Operational due diligence#Merging the "Operational due diligence" and "Operational Due Diligence" articles (to which header boxes on both articles link, raising doubts as to whether the proposer and supporter have read either page). That's the way to go IMO. Proposed since February with very little comment so far. Andrewa (talk) 00:42, 30 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)
  • At the risk of repeating myself, suggest Talk:Operational due diligence#Merging the "Operational due diligence" and "Operational Due Diligence" articles is a good place to discuss the proposed merge? It's only one of the options, and this RM does no harm while the others are discussed. Andrewa (talk) 08:55, 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)
      • There is a live proposal to move at Talk:Operational due diligence#Merging the "Operational due diligence" and "Operational Due Diligence" articles. See below. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Gotcha. And thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
          • It's been a bit of an epic sorting it out, but we're getting there IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

From Talk:Operational due diligence#Merging the "Operational due diligence" and "Operational Due Diligence" articles:

• Current article at Operational due diligence moves to Operational due diligence (alternative investments).
• Article from Operational Due Diligence then moves to Operational due diligence as proposed, and a main link is added to it to point to Operational due diligence (alternative investments).

See Talk:Operational due diligence#Merging the "Operational due diligence" and "Operational Due Diligence" articles for the rest of the proposal. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 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.

Proposed merge

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

See also Talk:Operational due diligence (alternative investments). At my count, in the old discussion there, there's one user in favour of a merge, and one opposed and in favour of continued disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)