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: Not Moved. The WP:BROADCONCEPT article aspect has merit and should be pursued by interested editors via the appropriate wiki projects. Mike Cline (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acclimatisation society → Acclimatisation movement – In the spirit of the WP:BROADCONCEPT guideline, articles should have the broadest possible scope that allows them to cover a discrete topic. In this case, acclimatisation societies were just a manifestation of the acclimatisation movement, so the article should be titled after the movement, and should discuss the societies as well as any other parts of the movement that went beyond them. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invites issued to relevant WikiProjects. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because many other species were deliberately introduced such as honeybees, mongoose, ring-necked pheasant, and other game animals in other parts of the world. Hardyplants (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose After giving this some more thought and doing a some research I have decide to change my vote. We should have a page on the deliberate introducing of species, but the topic of this article is specific to organizations that viewed themselves as, and organized themselves, into an Acclimatization society. There are plenty of references and even entire books that cover these originations.Hardyplants (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hardyplants Well, it might be that we ultimately want two separate articles, or it might be the case that they'd have so much overlapping information that they'd be WP:CONTENTFORKs. But the broader topics should always be created first, and the subtopics spun off from there, so if there's no article on acclimatisation movement, that should either be created or this moved to there and adapted. I've tagged the movement page as having possibilities, so that if this RM fails, it'll signal a need for that article to be written. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - the article as it stands was largely written from a New Zealand / Australian perspective, where independent acclimatisation societies played a prominent role in the various separate colonies. ("Australia" didn't come into existence as a federated nation until 1901.) The direct successors of at least two 19th C acclimatisation societies still exist in Australia, albeit with very different missions (see Adelaide Zoo#History and Perth Zoo#History). It's not clear to me how "acclimatisation movement" would be an improvement - I see that the disambiguation page Movement#Society and culture, lists the following articles:

Art movement, a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal, followed by a group of artists during a restricted period of time

Political movement, a coordinated group action focused on a political issue or ideology

Social movement, a coordinated group action focused on a social issue

Religious movement, a coordinated group action focused on a religious ideology

This usage implies a degree of "coordinated group action" that doesn't apply to these sovieties, or to similar actions by government bodies that were involved in setting up experimental gardens for the introduction of new crops (e.g. the establishment of the City Botanic Gardens at the then-Moreton Bay penal settlement by the Government of New South Wales, or the importation of livestock to improve the genetics for the pastoral industry.

IMHO, the "acclimatisation societies" were significant enough in their own right to have this as the article title, rather than being subsumed into into something as vague as a "movement". Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Frankly, I do not understand the oppose arguments. Yes, acclimatisation societies indeed played a prominent role in several colonies. Individual societies, with similar ideas and methods, taken together constitute a movement. Taking the meaning of movement from our disambiguation page (!) is misguided at best; if one insists, wikt:movement has at 4) A trend in various fields or social categories, a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals, which fits our case perfectly. Our article is an overview of all those societies, hence it should be appropriately called "movement". Reliable sources do not seem to have problem with calling this a "movement", including:
  • Dunlap, Thomas R. (1997). "Remaking the Land: The Acclimatization Movement and Anglo Ideas of Nature". Journal of World History. 8 (2): 303–319.
  • Janick, J. (2011). Horticultural Reviews, Volume 6. Horticultural Reviews. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-06091-9. Retrieved 2022-02-02. From the beginning of the acclimatization movement there has been confusion concerning terminology
  • Pearce, F. (2016). The New Wild: Why Invasive Species Will Be Nature's Salvation. Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0-8070-3955-7. Retrieved 2022-02-02. But the acclimatization movement was at its wildest in the United States.
  • Home, R.W.; Kohlstedt, S.G. (2012). International Science and National Scientific Identity: Australia between Britain and America. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Springer Netherlands. ISBN 978-94-011-3786-7. Retrieved 2022-02-02. The acclimatization movement grew most successfully in areas of French scientific authority

  No such user (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]