Talk:Amazon (company)/Archive 3

Requested move 19 September 2017

 * 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: Move. There are good arguments on both sides. However, the majority of participants in this discussion as well as the previous one find the present title more problematic than the proposed one, which has the benefit of including the actual common name, "Amazon". As such I find consensus to move. Cúchullain t/ c 18:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Amazon.com → Amazon (company) – Per several proposals in the previous move request, I am suggesting a move to "Amazon (company)", especially with regards to WP:COMMONNAME. — JFG talk 15:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Before you take part in this discussion, please consider the following details. These have been blown way out of proportion in the previous discussion and need to be addressed before it becomes as heated again:
 * "Amazon (company)", because it appears more often in the "Amazon" form than in the current one, perfectly applies to WP:COMMONNAME, as JFG correctly states. However, you will quickly realize that it creates a parenthetical disambiguator, meaning a phrase that needs to be appended artificially to the seach term.
 * "Amazon.com", derived from the company's legal name "Amazon.com, Inc.", does not actually go against WP:COMMONNAME, in fact, it is used in reliable source often enough to apply to it, even if not as common as "Amazon", however, it serves as a natural disambiguator.
 * WP:NCDAB tells us the following: "Natural disambiguation. When there is another term or more complete name that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use."
 * WP:ATDAB deepens it further, saying "Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names."
 * Given this, Wikipedia strongly ask us to value a natural disambiguator higher than a parenthetical disambiguator.
 * The decission on you now is if, based on the above three points, if you prefer a natural disambiguator or a parenthetical disambiguator.
 * Please do not judge based what top-level domain your local Amazon website is on. The article is currently named after the company's legal name "Amazon.com, Inc."; is not named "Amazon.com" because the majority of readers is from America, and we would not rename the article "Amazon.co.uk" if the majority was from the United Kingdom. The German article is not named "Amazon.de" either.
 * As you can see, WP:COMMONNAME is not the answer to every problem in life, there is a lot to consider. Now that you have read through this, please carry on to comment below. { Cheers! Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Based on my own points above, I believe that it is best to keep it the way it is. Switching from one disambiguator to another just does not aid anyone, actually, and the difference, in the end, is only a disambiguation type and name length difference (of which the current title is in the better spot for both aspects). Additionally, I would like to ping all contributors from the previous discussion: . Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lordtobi and Wikipedia's policy to encourage natural disambiguation as best alternative to more ambiguous term without any form of disambiguation. True that "Amazon (company)" is a nicer alternative, but parenthetical disambiguation fits for notable movie soundtracks whose (un)official titles are too long to type, like Star Wars (soundtrack). Parenthetical disambiguation would not help readers naturally find the topic that they are looking for. "Amazon.com" meets five goals (well, they are called "goals", not rules) of WP:CRITERIA: it is recognizable, natural, concise, precise, and consistent with ".com" articles, like Rotten.com, distinct from rotten. --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since Amazon is unavailable, Amazon.com is the next best thing per WP:AT as being recognizable, natural, concise, and still widely used, including all over the company's website. Station1 (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC) 17:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lordtobi and WP:NCDAB: "Natural disambiguation. When there is another term or more complete name that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use." and "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". Also, WP:CONCISE. Amazon.com is more concise than "Amazon (company)".   Also, WP:TITLECHANGES  "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed", this article has been stable since it was first created 15 years ago and no good reason has been put forward for this change, WP:COMMONNAME is the only justification put forward by the requestor, but as previously stated by several editors, there is nothing in WP:COMMONNAME (which tells us that "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register", Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia.com and Oxford Reference all use "Amazon.com" as the title of their respective entries) to support the suggested change.  (Apart from the references to WP:COMMONNAME the only justifications put forward have been from those who seem to think that the name of the company itself should be changed, and that is way beyond the realms of WP!)  Also, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."  The following article titles, about companies with ".com" as part of their name, are consistent with Amazon.com: Kayak.com, Ancestry.com, JD.com, ASOS.com, salesforce.com, lastminute.com, Booking.com, Hotels.com, Priceline.com.  The existing name is fully in line with WP:TITLE.  It is completely normal for the WP articles about major corporations to have the company's formal name as the article title, sometimes followed by a "commonly known as" comment in the first part of the lede.  Some examples: ::Volkswagen Group - but we refer to them simply as VW, Royal Dutch Shell "commonly known as Shell"., Apple Inc. - but we refer to them simply as Apple, CVS Health - but we refer to them simply as CVS, General Motors "commonly known as GM", Ford Motor Company "commonly referred to simply as Ford", General Electric - but we refer to them simply as GE.  Amazon themselves frequently use "Amazon.com" rather than just "Amazon" when referring to the company and its services: Amazon.com Store Card, Amazon.com Corporate Credit, when announcing results, stock offerings, promotions, webcasts, SEC Filings, and press releases.  Customers in the US will, having signed in, find that their personal page is linked from the top of the home page, as: "Customer name's Amazon.com".  There is no shortage of recent references from reliable sources which refer to the company as Amazon.com: Amazon.com reportedly mulling building a huge warehouse,  South Florida wants to be Amazon.com's second home Amazon.com boosts presence in Mexico,  Amazon.com Plans Shelby, Michigan, Fulfillment Center, How Can I Find the Next Facebook or Amazon.com, Jeff Bezos Seeks Location For Second Amazon.com HQ, Amazon.com to invest Rupees 179.25 crore in Shoppers Stop, Drilling Down Into Amazon.com,  Warning Signs for Amazon.com, Stocks Flat But Amazon.com, Amazon.com announced Thursday that it is seeking a second North American headquarters, Better Buy: Amazon.com, Inc. vs Google,  With Amazon.com looking for giant new HQ, Bay Area raises hand,  Former Amazon.com analyst pleads guilty to insider trading, Forbes The World's Most Innovative Companies #3 Amazon.com, Amazon.com @amazon Official Twitter of Amazon.com, Amazon.com delivers price cut promise as it completes Whole Foods takeover, FTC clears Amazon.com purchase of Whole Foods.  Simply "Amazon" is the most common name (as expressed in the first few words of the article: "Amazon.com, Inc., commonly known as Amazon") but it has many other meanings, and is therefore not available as an article title. An article entitled Amazon (company) would not indicate WHICH of the many Amazon companies it was about!  (Bear in mind that there are already many other articles which deal with specific parts of the Amazon empire).  Those that prefer the "company" disambiguator should bear in mind that it would only be a reasonable and accurate title if it were Amazon.com (company), but that would also be an entirely pointless exercise.  Amazon.com remains the best title. FF-UK (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Updated FF-UK (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong support Investor relations are a bad example because of their intentionally formal writing style. Amazon commonly refers to themselves as just Amazon instead of Amazon.com. Here are some examples:
 * All of their "About Amazon" pages
 * Their Careers website.
 * The logo of Amazon.com
 * In product names, like "Amazon Prime", "Amazon Music", "Amazon Web Services", rather than "Amazon.com Prime".
 * It's perfectly acceptable to use the common name rather than the company's official name, and people undoubtedly call it Amazon more often than Amazon.com. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 21:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support for a different compromise. Apologies, I will copy and paste from my previous points as it was ignored: would it make sense to follow the system used for Google and Alphabet Inc. on Wikipedia? So 'Amazon.com, Inc.' would be the equivalent of 'Alphabet' and therefore describing the parent company, then create a page to describe the online retail subsidiary in the same way other subsidiaries have their own pages such as Amazon Echo etc. It does feel strange that Amazon Echo has its own page, yet Amazon online retail doesn't and is instead combined in the parent company page. That system has worked successfully for Google's evolution, I feel it would work well for Amazon's too.TGB13 (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A website is different from a corporation. Having separate pages for the two separate concepts make sense. However, I don't believe that Google/Alphabet pages actually work that way yet. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I know a website is different from a corporation. There are parallels with the two situations. The Google/Alphabet pages do work like that, look at their template pages: Template:Alphabet Inc. and Template:Google Inc.. Clearly shows the parent company and subsidiaries, the same situation as Amazon finds itself. 'Amazon.com Inc.' is the parent company and 'Amazon (retail)' would be the online retail website. Look at the amount of products and services that have their own page: Template:Amazon; yet the retail website, probably the most famous and most used, doesn't have one! It's instead merged with the parent company page.TGB13 (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong support for the reasons I already stated once, but again, mainly because I think that the common use name "Amazon" differentiated by (company) is more appropiate than using a legal name that not even the company itself uses to refer to themselves. -Talianos「talk」 11:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - see my arguments in the previous discussion, and thank you for the ping! Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:COMMONNAME (will support anything that gets rid of the unused except in web links dotcom) -Roxy the dog. bark 13:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per WP:NATURAL, having a natural disambiguation makes more sense than a parenthetical one.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments in the previous request above. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  19:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – We must choose a title between the common name "Amazon" – qualified by a "(company)" disambiguator – and an official name "Amazon.com" which is rarely used nowadays, even by the company itself. As the earlier discussion has shown, Amazon is way more than a "dot-com", so that the more generic title "Amazon (company)" is justified. — JFG talk 02:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per the points I made in the previous discussion. Amazon.com is not its most common name. Amazon is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2017 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2018
2602:306:3A54:5B60:BCEE:A6C8:3CFA:EC51 (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. AdA&D  02:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Corporation tax controversy
Amazon attracted controversy for not paying enough corporation tax. This attracted enough news coverage to get a mention in the first paragraph in the section sub-titled "Controversies". Vorbee (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you asking? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Article improvement
Is there anything I can do to help improve this article? I see it has no tags but I'd like to contribute in any way I can. MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to read Talk:Amazon (company)/GA2 for some previous suggestions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Industry
I'm just curious as to whether others think that it isn't exactly correct to say that Amazon is just in the Online Shopping industry. I feel like considering it has various electronic products of its own including tablets, voice assistants etc. that it therefore is also part of the Consumer Electronics industry. Additionally, Amazon owns Twitch therefore are they not also providing a Video Streaming service, and Twitch has its own Windows application so therefore Amazon also partake in Computer Software. Also I doubt anyone will dispute that they are definitely an Internet industry company. Any thoughts on the above suggestions? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Online shopping is the primary industry of Amazon.com, Inc. and has been since their inception. Many other indistries are purused by its subsidiaries (e.g. cloud services by Amazon Web Serivces, Inc.). Since the corporate structure is not 100% clear to the public (such as us), we should IMO only include the primary industry. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter, see Microsoft for example which has Video Games as one of its industries. Their subsidiary Xbox is responsible for this, however it is noted on the parent company's page also, therefore it should be the same for Amazon. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Microsoft's industry listing appears to be a mess, and not in a good way. Infoboxes should note what is essential to the company, not everything there is about it. Adding more and more industries to it would only grow the infobox into infinite dimensions, so let's not do that. If we found a few categories that define Amazon, we can surely add them, but better have a compact list--like three entries--than a long, uncomprehensive list. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Microsoft listing is quite a mess. Internet is one listing we could use which would encompass a large amount of what Amazon does. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Online services" (or similar) would algamate multile of your proposals if I see that correctly. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, Online Services would encompass their software as well as their video streaming services and possibly also Online Shopping. Is their number of consumer electronics prevalent enough for it to be listed as an industry? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Online vs. offline delivery profits
It may be noteworthy and relevant how Amazon's profits devide between offline and online delivered products, i. e. downloads/streams vs. goods physically delivered to your doorstep or a PO box. --2003:71:4E16:4B74:71A3:7D52:C37D:2EF1 (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no way to the best of my knowledge that we can obtain this information as Amazon only reports on profits as a whole not individually on types of delivery. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Change HQ Location (Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2018)
Change

Elvis Marmaduke (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I don't know why Newsweek is calling Amazon's European HQ is Amazon's "global" HQ. Here, "global" possibly means outside the US; similar to the whole "rest of the world" thing. But like I said, It's the European HQ, not the corporate HQ. More sources: 1, 2, and 3 --  ChamithN   (talk)  20:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct 2017 Revenue (Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018)
According to the | cited reference the 2017 revenues are 35.71B (Mars 2017), 37.95B (June 2017), 43.74B (September 2017) and 60.45B (December 2017). The sum is US$177.85 billion and not US$177.86 billion. Dujo (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018
Rename from Amazon (company) to Amazon or Amazon.com 72.73.114.101 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌. Amazon is a common name so Amazon takes you to a disambiguation page which helps distinguish between the many things that the term Amazon may reference. Amazon.com would, IMO, be a good name for the article but if you look above you will see this was discussed last September with the decision being to rename from Amazon.com to the current name. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

upcoming GDPR breaches (25th May)
Amazon has released their highly-UNCONSENTUAL facial recognition system recently, but not without criticism. On May 25th, when the EU tries to enforce its GDPR, internet giants such as Amazon and even ICANN will most certainly be effected. Without wanting the article to read like promotional material, should we add a section on GDPR and Privacy controls along with an Anti-trust section?126.161.186.17 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sweatshops in China/Controversy
June 10th/11th 2018 reports are coming out of an in-depth investigation into the part played by Amazon in Chinese sweatshops. Considering the Anti-Trust violations and other criticisms, it would be safe (and appropriate) to add the sweatshop issues to a new "Controversy" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.129.138 (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

New Issues
1. The policy of not shipping items that are in stock to prime members. This started on black Friday 2017 but is now apparently policy with not rhyme or reason.

2. Shutting out users from being able to contact customer support for anything but completed transactions within a window.

Does anyone think these topics should be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.58.50 (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Wage increase to 15 dollars per hour
So, what was it before? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post sources
I know the Washington Post is a reliable source, but is it ethical to source it here knowing that Jeff Bezos also owns the paper?Trillfendi (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to know whether or not this is an issue. I guess it isn't a WP:COI because it is not being edited by people from The Washington Post, but whether or not it is a reputable source for Amazon-related articles is something to discuss about. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

New source
-- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Fix comma
The comma is wrongly written in: "regret minimization framework",

Put it after the double quote
 *  Comment - Post to enable archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hyper-competitive application process
There's a slight problem in this article with overuse of meaningless buzzwords/terminology like this. Amazon is considered one of the big four technology companies because of its revenue/market share, it's got nothing to do with a "hyper-competitive application process" and that term isn't even defined in the article in any case. I would advocate changing this to more neutral/encyclopedic language. It's far too close to PR to say something like this and I've checked both of the sources given and can't see justification for it - though one is behind a paywall so it might be in there somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.137.97.2 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I should say "brand equity" and "disruptive innovation" are also fairly dubious for the same reasons. Really the point being made here is Amazon is one of the big four technology companies - nobody can dispute that, but we can say it without unloading a load of PR-friendly jargon in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.137.97.2 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Additions and improvements
Amazon.de is available in Czech, so that could be added in "Avaliable in:" section. Also amazon.com.tr should be in Europe, because the Turkish website is a part of/controlled and handled by the European division "Amazon EU S.à.r.l." It doesn't make sense to seperate it from the other European websites. Nomig77 (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

IMDB is a subsidiary of Amazon and should be listed in the Subsidiary section and linked to the IMDB entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenbob (talk • contribs) 16:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IMDB is listed in the opening paragraph of the subsidiary section and called out in the infobox. Kuru   (talk)  18:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

History of Amazon
 Support split - History section takes up a substantial portion of the more than 100 kB page, and should be split to a new article entitled History of Amazon. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Support - I do think it makes sense. One could maybe say the same about controversies, which may be a more frequent spam target than the rest of the page. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Hayden Hubbard helped create Amazon with the founder but was later shutout of the project.

I oppose such a split and have reverted it. We need more than two paragraphs on the history of the company here. At 43 kB (6892 words) of readable prose size, the article does not violate any size guidelines and does not need to be split. (though it needs some reorganization). Some things that are only tangentially related and could be considered for cutting are things like Amazon (company) but the history of the company cannot be reduced so much. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to expand the history section and it becomes too long to fit here, then of course it can be split, but until that happens the split shouldn't happen. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on becoming an admin. Maybe no-one told you that you still don't get a casting vote to over-rule consensus like this. You're too late (you had three months) and at least three other editors seem to favour the split. Stomping in and just reverting it undiscussed is not good editing. I'm glad I Opposed your RfA at the time – this is exactly why. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please discuss here rather than repeatedly reverting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I don't think that it is appropriate to merge History of Amazon during a merge discussion when and  have concurred with the split.  Let's allow the merge discussion to finish before we merge it again.  I plan to add to the history summary slowly but surely. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article was just split yesterday, you can hardly call it a merge back - I'm reverting a recent split.
 * I'm hoping to discuss the actual issue at hand rather than process issues - I'm wondering, do you think it is reasonable to have just two short paragraphs on the history of Amazon in the main article? For example, Microsoft, Google, and Apple have much more than that or even the entire history section that you split off. Really don't see the necessity to summarize just 1300 words. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would that matter?  The history article is 26k of text and twenty two paragraphs. Are you suggesting that all of those should be returned to it?  (Well, that's pretty much what you just did.).   If you think the trailer for history should be more than two paras, then fine - do just that. But that (unless you move all twenty two back) has no relevance for whether it should be split or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Twenty two paragraphs (or 1300 words) of history is perfectly reasonable here and indeed all of it should be returned - there is nothing unreasonable about the status quo ante of 1300-1700 words of history. If someone writes a few thousand words of history, a split would be reasonable, but of course an article that entirely duplicates a section is not useful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So are you also advocating merging Timeline of Amazon.com in here as well? Because it makes sense to have that in a single separate article with History of Amazon (as agreed below), but no sense at all on its own, and it's a very big bloat to merge all three to one.
 * This is why it needs to stay at the consensus position of an Amazon article and a single history article. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not conflate different issues here. Timeline of Amazon.com has existed separately for 3 years, well before a split was proposed, and makes sense as an article on its own. My position is simply that there is no reason to reduce the size of Amazon (company) - an article on an company needs a reasonable amount of content on its history, and 1300 words seems a perfectly reasonable length, indeed shorter than many companies of comparable size. In this case, doing that would seem to imply having no separate history article, though I don't actually care if one exists or not. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not conflate different issues here. Timeline of Amazon.com has existed separately for 3 years, well before a split was proposed, and makes sense as an article on its own. My position is simply that there is no reason to reduce the size of Amazon (company) - an article on an company needs a reasonable amount of content on its history, and 1300 words seems a perfectly reasonable length, indeed shorter than many companies of comparable size. In this case, doing that would seem to imply having no separate history article, though I don't actually care if one exists or not. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 *  Reply - I agree, that since there are 3 votes for splitting and one vote against, that the history article should be reinstated for now until this discussion is complete. When an article is nominated for AFD, the tag instructs people not to delete the article until the discussion is finished.  I encourage  or  to reinstate History of Amazon at this time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment - I have reinstated History of Amazon, which can be merged again following the conclusion of this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply - I have (mostly) finished my summary of the company history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the split, as it leaves a comically small History section here and leaves this article horribly imbalanced as a directory of subsidiaries and controversies. The size of the History section doesn't beg a split at this time. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, if needed, we could split the subsidiaries and trim the controversies. The article is split up into sub-articles about controversies and Amazon tax for a reason. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or, y'know, we could just put back the content in the history section? Or should we just reduce the article down to nothing by splitting off every section? A 5-6000 word article hardly needs splitting or trimming like this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out additionally that there is no guideline basis for this split. WP:SIZERULE goes off of readable prose size (not total wikitext size), and even before the split that was ~39 kB, where the guidance is "Length alone does not justify division". Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge of "Timeline of Amazon.com" to "History of Amazon"

 * We already had Timeline of Amazon.com. What happens to that? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support merge - I support the merge of Timeline of Amazon.com to History of Amazon. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I think it makes sense but is not needed. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - If we end up not merging, I think that it would make sense to change the title "Timeline of Amazon.com" to "Timeline of Amazon", as "Amazon.com" is being used as "Amazon" and it may cause some confusion. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Prose is preferred on most Wikipedia pages, and there is enough overlap between the two pages that merging Timeline of Amazon.com into History of Amazon would eliminate duplication and be easier to maintain. —  Newslinger  talk   12:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Two short articles on the same theme is exactly the type of stuff we should merge. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – No-brainer. — JFG talk 03:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019
I want the revenue for Amazon to be updated for 2018. Amazon's annual revenue for 2018 is around 232.9 billion dollars. The source of this information is from https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/tech/amazon-earnings-q4-2018/index.html Techlover789 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done NiciVampireHeart 22:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Where is E-commerce?
I don't see many contributions to e-commerce or retail sales in the article as it stands today. Even though online selling is, by far (I think), Amazon's largest revenue source. The List of Amazon products and services only paraphrases the initial paragraph in the Products and services section, which has a CN.

Where are the figures of gross margin vs. market share going back for ten years? Where is the breakdown of revenue between the various components of retail sales (books, appliances, groceries, etc.)? What were Bezos's thoughts when he decided to break out of selling merely books? I can't believe that in 14 years, no one has written a book, good or bad, on Amazon. When I do a Google search on "amazon e-commerce" it comes back with 338 million hits. Surely something in there is worthy of a Wikipedia paragraph (or two). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2019
In the infobox, please add the owners field with the values. Source: 89.204.153.180 (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Added names, but it's not obvious to me where your Jeff % comes from. Izno (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The source (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47817833) says that "Ms Bezos keeps a 4% stake in the online retail giant, worth $35.6bn on its own" and "Prior to the settlement, Mr Bezos held a 16.3% stake in Amazon. He will retain 75% of that holding". Therefore, Ms. Bezos winds up with 8.075% (16.3x25%+4%) or $71.9bn (35.6bn/4%x8.075%) while Mr. Bezos retains 12.225% (16.3x75%) or $108.8bn (35.6bn/4%x12.225%). I leave it to you to effect the change as I cannot even find the owners field. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The owners parameter was removed by a different user after the request was initially implemented as Amazon is a publicly-traded company. As per Template:Infobox company, "To list percentages owned of a private company, use the ownership parameter" (emphasis mine). NiciVampireHeart 11:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Amazon+Pakistan listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amazon+Pakistan. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request - 18th July 2019
Please edit the opening sentence of the "Third-party sellers" section: it currently claims that "Amazon derives many of its sales (around 40% in 2008) from third-party sellers who sell products on Amazon," but the linked citation actually states that Amazon "derived about 40% of its sales from partners participating in their 'Associates' program" - i.e. those using the company's affiliate advertising scheme. It makes no claims about the percentage of revenue generated by third-party sellers, rather than third-party affiliate advertisers.

Ghalfacree (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes
Information to be added or removed: Amazon is known for its ability to disrupt well-established industries through technological innovation and mass scale Explanation of issue: please remove as Amazon is not in the business to disrupt industries

Amazon employee

Please add Hindi in supported languages on Amazon. Hindi is newly added on Amazon. Hollamanish (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2019
We just make refrence of your site for reffrel Gulatishubham (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

fake products in amazon
There are many reports about fake products that are sold in amazon. https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/29/20837359/amazon-basics-fake-sellers-imposters-third-party-marketplace https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amazon-turning-a-blind-eye-to-fake-products-5w6gmfnq2 https://gizmodo.com/just-how-bad-is-amazons-banned-products-problem-1837778839 We should mention it in the article. Because that show reliability problem in amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.74 (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem in opening sentence re big 4
Referring to the Big 4 technology companies is misleading without Microsoft currently the biggest by market cap — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattWillsUK (talk • contribs) 09:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it really a technology company?
I think that calling it a tech company in the first line is wrong and inaccurate. It is simply an online store. It doesn't develop technology, not at all. It is one website, that sells things, an online version of walmart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.67.207 (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, except for all the technology products they've developed, then sure. Kuru   (talk)  02:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2019
I would like to add the following as a subsidiary, in alphabetical order (under Goodreads):

Health Navigator
In October 2019, Amazon finalized the acquisition of Health Navigator, a startup developing APIs for online health services. The startup will form part of Amazon Care, which is the company's employee healthcare service. This follows the 2018 purchase of PillPack for under $1 billion, which has also been included into Amazon Care.

Thank you! 73.32.97.198 (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, . Thank you for following the format request of what you want done. : ) Doug Mehus (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move as Amazon is WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. (non-admin closure) comrade waddie96 ★ (talk)  19:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Amazon (company) → Amazon.com Inc. – Per WP:NATURAL, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME, and Apple Inc.. Hat tip to for alerting me to the WP:NATURAL essay/policy. Note: if consensus supports, this will require an administrator or non-involved editor with page mover permissions to complete the move and perform a round-robin page swap to suppress the redirect. -DM Doug Mehus (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unlike Apple Inc., its not "Amazon.com" outside the US, for example its Amazon.co.uk in the UK, see Amazon (company) however the proposed move includes "Inc." in the name so its not the same as the last title. Also note that the EB is at Amazon.com not "Amazon.com Inc." either way I'm skeptical about this move.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly right...in Canada, it's actually Amazon.com.ca Inc. as the legal name and Amazon.ca as the common name. Nevertheless, Amazon.com/Amazon.com Inc. is the ultimate parent company, per either WP policy, of the overseas subsidiaries.--Doug Mehus (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's not right. Amazon.ca is also operated by Amazon.com, Inc. (this company), like all other regional websites. No Amazon.co.ca Inc. or Amazon.com.ca Inc. exists in the country. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I didn't look up the Canadian company with Corporations Canada or provincial corporate registries, but Canadian packages show the Canadian entity as "Amazon.com.ca Inc." or "Amazon.ca.com Inc." (can't remember which) Doug Mehus (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , interesting, there appears to be a lifeless holding in Delaware (where an "Amazon.com.ca, Inc." exists, but also an "Amazon.com.dedc, LLC", "Amazon.com.nddc, Inc.", "Amazon.com.tc 2, Inc.", and so forth; you can check here); Amazon.ca's CoS uses both "Amazon.com.ca, Inc." and "Amazon.com, Inc." interchangeably, while all footers uniformly say "Amazon.com, Inc." It's a dilemma. Ultimately, though, this should have no effect on this RM. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , True, but I disagree with comments below (not necessarily yours) that RMs should be closed because of opposition to the move as proposed. A consensus-determining editor (or, ideally, administrator) should be able to determine, from the replies, which option is favoured or if no option is favoured. For example, my "read" of this consensus, at present, is that the move as proposed by me is definitely opposed. There may be emerging consensus to move to Amazon without the dab qualifier, though Amazon.com does show a fair degree of support, but likely not enough to be construed as consensus. So, while it's complicated when multiple alternate proposals are discussed within an RM, since it's not a vote, I think it's OK to use an existing RM discussion to find consensus for an alternate move.
 * It's funny you mentioned Amazon.com.dedc Inc. as I've definitely seen that holding company name. I'd just argue that Amazon.com.ca Inc. is slightly more than a shell company that the former is because it is the name of the legal entity they use to operate in Canada (though it's interesting they use a U.S.-incorporated entity in Canada and not a Canadian-incorporated entity). The U.S. must have more corporate friendly laws, I guess. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's funny you mentioned Amazon.com.dedc Inc. as I've definitely seen that holding company name. I'd just argue that Amazon.com.ca Inc. is slightly more than a shell company that the former is because it is the name of the legal entity they use to operate in Canada (though it's interesting they use a U.S.-incorporated entity in Canada and not a Canadian-incorporated entity). The U.S. must have more corporate friendly laws, I guess. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternative move proposal: Move to Amazon.com per WP:COMMONNAME and Apple Inc.. --Doug Mehus (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Added comment from Page Move Proposer: Ultimately, this article is about more than a company, but it probably should be further split, but I'm not sure how, with this surviving article focusing on the U.S. domiciled publicly-traded parent company (for which either Amazon.com or Amazon.com Inc. is the most appropriate company name). In short, it needs cleanup. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't see any new arguments presented beyond what was already covered in the Requested move 19 September 2017 discussion. -- Netoholic @ 19:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply With respect, looking through the previous move proposals, which I appreciate you adding,, I saw an extremely weak consensus of moving from its previous title of Amazon.com as opposed to the previous move requests prior that which favoured not moving or no consensus. I'm fine with making this article strictly focused on Amazon.com, the publicly-traded corporation, and splitting off all of the divisions and products into separate articles, potentially even making an Amazon (online retailer) article, but the corporate parent company article—this one—should be Amazon.com or Amazon.com Inc.--Doug Mehus (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Extremely strong oppose Per WP:CONCISE. That title is word salad.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But I noted you opposed moving to Amazon (company), possibly strongly opposed. What about the alternative proposal, or some other proposal?Doug Mehus (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I support moving to Amazon.com, since it's "Amazon.com Inc." and not "Amazon Inc."ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, watch this page, if you're not already, and when this move request has run its course, I'll propose reverting to its previous name, Amazon.com. Successive past move attempts resulted in the page not being moved; only last time did the move proposer "get lucky" on weak consensus.--Doug Mehus (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support move to Amazon.com. The "Inc." is not necessary, and Amazon.com is far superior to the non-concise Wikipedia-generated parenthetical Amazon (company).  Compare Salesforce.com (not Salesforce (company)), many others. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent example, . Salesforce.com even uses just Salesforce in its company name yet its article name is a concise and natural Salesforce.com. And, it does have global subsidiaries just like Amazon.com. I think the most recent page move won on weak consensus and, thus, there wasn't actually consensus to move it to Amazon (company).Doug Mehus (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Move to Amazon.com – for those concerned about the use of ".com" outside of the US, would it not solve the problem to have ".com.ca", ".com.jp", ".co.uk", etc. redirect to this article anyway? WikiRedactor (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Prior move proposals have either failed or resulted in no consensus, only the last time did it pass on weak consensus to move to a cumbersome Amazon (company)., , , , and all made excellent points on keeping it at Amazon.com. Unfortunately, they seemed to have been outnumbered, narrowly, by a bunch of Google stats-focused newbie editors. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talk • contribs) 02:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Yes, technically the official name of the company may be "Amazon.com Inc." but per usual convention we defer to the common name, not the official name. In this case, the common vernacular, and overwhelmingly the name used in reliable sources, is plain "Amazon". It's also the way the company refers to itself, other than in its official name: All in all, nothing has materially changed since the consensus to move to the current name two years ago, and the same arguments still apply. Crouch, Swale, also makes a good point that, outside of the US, in markets in Canada, the UK, and other European countries, the website itself is not even at amazon.com so it's better to retain a more neutral WP:WORLDWIDE title.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * oppose per Google stats-focused newbie editors, and WP:COMMONNAME. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 12:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common name. Please don't keep trying to add .com, as it is not the companies common name worldwide. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Amazon.com per WP:COMMONNAME. Countries that don't use the .com TLD still say dot-com company: Empresa puntocom, Entreprise point com, Дотком. It's fewer letters to type ".com" and fewer syllables to say "dot com" than "company" and it contains more information specifically to the actual subject. "Dot com" tells you you it's a company, it's an Internet enterprise, and it resolves any doubt that this is about the Amazon internet retailer, not just any company that might happen to also be called Amazon. Adding Inc. doesn't clarify any of the above questions and is included only in cases where it's the simplest route to disambiguation. Not impressed with bashing newbies, btw. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, common name is just Amazon without the .com or Inc, as used on nearly all their services.Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Amazon per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE (see |Amazon_(company)|Amazon_River|Amazon_(yacht)|Amazon_(chess)|Amazon_(1999_TV_series)|Amazon_(video_game)|Amazon_(2000_film)|Amazon_(2008_TV_series)|Amazon_(1990_film) pageviews). The river is already at Amazon River and the dab page is getting 700 views per day, too many for a dab page, most of whom want Amazon.com. - Station1 (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If we are going to move it, I too would suggest moving it to Amazon. The river is primarily known as "The Amazon" or "Amazon River," but not simply "Amazon."  Calidum   13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Per and 's comments above, I have been reluctant to move Amazon (company) to Amazon due to the "Amazon River" being, historically, the WP:COMMONNAME and my own personal preference for having disambiguation pages without parenthetical qualifiers—that is, (disambiguation); however, I think if surveys were conducted, when asked, the majority of the world's population would equate "Amazon" to the e-commerce and cloud storage company and not the South American river. Moreover, it does seem to be an emerging, if not the predominant trend, to have articles occupy the non-parenthetical qualifier page name and have the disambiguation page moved to a parenthetically-qualified page. So, I'd support  and 's alternate proposal to move to Amazon and move the disambiguation page to Amazon (disambiguation). --Doug Mehus (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Uhh, no. The Amazon Rainforest or Amazon River are easily the primary topic for "Amazon", regardless of how well-known the company is. The fact that the company is named for it/them makes that abundantly clear.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer Amazon.com or Amazon.com Inc. here and would also prefer Wikipedia used WP:OFFICIALNAME, but consensus seems to be that WP:COMMONNAME is preferred. So, what exactly is "the common name" then? I thought it was prevailing global popular sentiment/thinking? In this way, common name can change such that, as the winds of societal thinking shift, what is WP:PRIMARY one year could be displaced by something else in 5-10 years from now.Doug Mehus (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would assume that it's common sense that people don't append "Inc." when they say "Amazon". So it's either "Amazon" or "Amazon.com". Per WP:NATURAL, we should choose the most common name that doesn't conflict with other pages, which makes it clear to me that it's "Amazon.com", which is also a fairly common way of referring to the company.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The company is widely known as Amazon and few know its legal name is Amazon.com. Per WP:COMMONNAME let's be reasonable and keep the name Amazon.XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose this move. "Amazon" is the most valuable brand in the world . You'll notice that every major news outlet including outlets like Bloomberg, NYT, CNBC, etc. all refer to "Amazon.com, Inc." as simply Amazon.75.172.212.65 (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, which is overwhelmingly just "Amazon", not "Amazon.com" and certainly not "Amazon.com Inc." But obviously not primary, given the existence of the river. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How can you say it's not WP:PRIMARY, though? Isn't that based on the global public thinking, or popular sentiment, at the time? That is, prevailing public opinion globally? If asked, I suspect majority of the world's population would first equate Amazon to the e-commerce and cloud storage company than to the South American named river. Thus, it seems like moving Amazon to either of Amazon River, The Amazon (per above), or Amazon (river) makes sense and is broadly consistent with both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARY. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because blatantly the river and its derivatives are primary. No, really I wouldn't think most people do think of the company first. They think of the river/rainforest. And it certainly trumps the company in long-term significance (which we also take into consideration when determining a primary topic). Frankly any argument otherwise is pretty laughable. And note the river is already at Amazon River, so there is strictly no one primary topic here already. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, I'd agree with you and opt to keep the Amazon River as primary topic as I prefer dab pages without parenthetical qualifiers, but since Wikipedia consensus on these matters favours assigning WP:Primary to one of the topics and to a disambiguation qualifier to the dab page, I think we should be considering moving either Amazon River to Amazon or Amazon (company) to Amazon consistent with WP:PRIMARY and WP:COMMONNAME. Otherwise, how do you square the circle that CNN is at CNN and not Cable News Network (which also seems off-side with WP:ACRONYM) or numerous other examples which are too many to list here? I think these are rational questions we need to be asking. --Doug Mehus (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note, too, that EBITDA is at Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, which seems consistent with WP:ACRONYM but which seems inconsistent with WP:ACRONYM. Thus, either CNN should be at Cable News Network or Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization should be at EBITDA.Doug Mehus (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "since Wikipedia consensus on these matters favours assigning WP:Primary to one of the topics and to a disambiguation qualifier to the dab page". No it doesn't. Not if there's no obvious primary topic. We have many disambiguation pages where there's no primary topic. I see no connection between CNN and EBITDA and Amazon! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As necro says, this may be drifting a bit off topic, but the relevant policy here would be WP:ACRONYMTITLE: In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. I think it's reasonable to say that many people familiar with CNN don't actually know what the acronym expands to, since it's rarely referred to by anything other than the acronym. Colin M (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We orchestrated this move last year with overwhelming consensus to favor the WP:COMMONNAME over a WP:NATURAL disambiguation formed from the company's legal name (note: not the trade name). The present name avoids the wrongful presumption that, despite actually being the company's legal name ("Amazon.com, Inc." -- with a comma), the title "Amazon.com" just refers to the Amazon.com website run in the US, although it refers to the company Amazon.com, Inc. that operates all regional websites (including Canada), builds Echo/Kindle devices, is traded on NASDAQ, et cetera. This clarity issue would still be a problem, as commented by other editors above, and it will probably not be fixed by making the "natural" disambiguator excessively long, where it already feels unnatural from the get-go. I can already envision a new RM saying "Amazon.com, Inc. is only the company that operates the US website, therefore ..."; we wouldn't want that. The present title is the company's trade name (as represented in every public representation), its common name in pretty much every source, and fine to keep here, even if it requires a parenthetical disambiguator, and there is no problem in using one. That said, I would support a move to just "Amazon" per WP:PRIMARY, though that would require additional WP:RECENTISM judgment and, more importantly, a different RM. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:41, 31 October 2019 (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.