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: no consensus to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. If the titling is an issue, it is clear that it does not apply to this page alone, which seems to be WP:CONSISTENT with similar titles. Upmerging is an editorial decision outside the scope of this close, but of course discussion on that can continue as necessary. Dekimasuよ! 09:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic engineering in the United States → Genetic food modification in the USA – This article is clearly just about genetic engineering of crops in the USA, and not about any other type of genetic engineering (ie gene therapy, ... ). So the page name should reflect this. KVDP (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose is there any other type of genetic engineering going on in the US? This isn't a sci-fi story, so without proof of that I would leave the article as-is._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Re genetic engineering in the USA: proof --> see here KVDP (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but change to Genetic food modification in the United States and delete redirect Reading through the article quickly, the article indeed only covers genetic food modification. Per WP:PRECISE, Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. (bold mine). Genetic engineering in the U.S. exists as a more general topic, but that is not what this article covers. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 12:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KVDP: I would recommend renaming your move request to Genetic food modification in the United States, since most articles don't abbreviate United States in their title. See this search for evidence. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 13:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the above suggestions based on consistency (e.g. Genetic engineering in Europe, Genetic engineering in South America, Genetic engineering in Asia, Genetic engineering in Africa, Genetic engineering in Oceania). I should note that I am a major author of this material, although the edit history does not show it. It was bare bones before an editor expanded it by cut and pasting info from Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms. I wrote almost all that info and am still a little raw over how that played out.

I can think of a few other options though.

• Keep current name. It is a daughter article of Genetic engineering in North America and a mother article or Genetic engineering in Hawaii so the title fits with those. There is no reason the article can't be expanded to include other forms of Genetic engineering, but the fact is that food remains a big part of it and our policies mean that this should be a large part of any genetic engineering article.
• Upmerge to Genetic engineering in North America. I created these Genetic engineering in [continent] articles following a a discussion at Talk:Regulation of genetically modified organisms#Requested move 24 April 2017 and this could easily fit there at the moment. To be fair it is probably worth its own page, but it has not received much attention since 2012. This will probably improve both articles and if the content does grow long enough it can be WP:split out. The user who started this liked to start lots of small articles, where as I prefer to keep everything reasonably centalised and break of as necessary.
• If we do want to change the name and just focus on food I would prefer Genetically modified food in the United States as it would then fit as a sub article of Genetically modified food. We don't have a per country designation there, but it should be able to fit in. If we want to be even more precise it could be Regulation of genetically modified food in the United States. Becomes a bit of a mouthful then and that was one of the reasons for the above mentioned move.

I have neglected these articles recently (I can only really handle these articles in small doses, especially after the ARB case and subsequent RFCs), but will implement whatever is decided here and work to improve the "Genetic engineering in ...." series up to a better standard. AIRcorn (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 pages as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Genetic engineering in the United States → Genetically modified food in the United States
• Genetic engineering in Europe → Genetically modified food in Europe
• Genetic engineering in South America → Genetically modified food in South America
• Genetic engineering in Asia → Genetically modified food in Asia
• Genetic engineering in Africa → Genetically modified food in Africa
• Genetic engineering in Oceania → Genetically modified food in Oceania
• Genetic engineering in North America → Genetically modified food in North America
• Genetic engineering in Hawaii → Genetically modified food in Hawaii

– As discussed in the section above, these articles are clearly just about genetic engineering of crops, and not about any other type of genetic engineering (ie gene therapy, ... ). So the page names should reflect this. KVDP (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC) -->[reply]

• Support but replace 'modified' with 'engineered'. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure yet. I had forgotten we had this many articles split up on the topic (a bunch of us just threw our hands up at one point as Aircorn alluded to in a discussion above). About a year ago, we had a similar move conversation where this suite came up. Most of these deal with the regulation of genetically modified organisms, so my preference would be Regulation of genetically modified organisms in X rather than food, and at a further step attempting to consolidate further into Regulation of genetic engineering as a main parent article to avoid some coatracking I'm seeing. That being said, keeping these under genetic engineering would make more sense for the eventual merge, but wouldn't really affect it either. The reason for organism instead of food in the title is because these articles are often dealing with the crop end of regulation and not the food end (though sometimes food comes up).

I'm going to try tinker around in my sandbox in the next few days to see what I can pull together for a merge to Regulation of genetic engineering. If I don't bring a version in this week, just assume I'm good with changing the redirect to my first choice. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of splitting these out was to avoid the undue weight in the regulation articles. Merging them back in would just bring us back full circle. The crop/food issue has been a constant problem at these articles (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics/GMO articles for an early discussion). Most crops are food, but not all. Most food are crops, but not all. I still don't know the best way to handle the GM crops vs GM food overlap, but feel the solution I proposed there is decent. I don't think it particularly matters what we title these articles (within reason) as the content can be made to reflect that. My original intention after the split was to use them as kind of holding cells for all the detailed information that eventually ends up in broader articles like the regulation one, but also the controversies, crops, food, animals and other genetic engineering subtopics. But that has not happened and I am more interested in getting the parent articles decent than these ones. These have potential though. AIRcorn (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some ideas for merging everything together and making it a coherent and decent size article without undue weight, but I just don't have the time right now to draft it all up afterall. Doing "holding cell" forks myself before, I'm iffy about maintaining those long-term, but I'd say now that overall potential merge is better left for another day. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle. These articles have potential to expand to include genetic engineering in a broader sense, but in their current iterations they fit much better under the proposed change. AIRcorn (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Suport as proposed. The article is very clearly and strongly scope-limited to food. “Engineering” is the wrong word because the topic is not about the method of engineering the mutations, but the implications of the result, it is therefore about the genetically modified food. “Genetically engineered food” would be ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer “modified” over “engineered” for consistency with parenting topics Genetically modified food and Genetically modified organism. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Biotechnology and genetic engineering in Bangladesh, Genetically modified food controversies in Ghana could presumably also be affected by this discussion. Dekimasuよ! 11:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those should probably be merged into one of these. The Hawaii one possibly too. AIRcorn (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.