"

 Ok, now you've screwed it up 

Originally the article title was under ""Constitution of May 3, 1791"". This is the title under which it passed GA review.

There is some discussion about the name above , with alternative names suggested by an anon IP and pretty much opposed by all established editors who have been active on this article, including on bringing it up to GA.

Then however, before the discussion was concluded and any kind of consensus reached User:TCO moved the article to ""Polish constitution of May 3, 1791"". There are several problems with this title some of which have been raised above, one big one being that it is not the name as used in most sources.

Then User:M.K moved the article to ""Polish-Lithuanian constitution of May 3, 1791"". There are several problems with this title some of which have been raised above, one big one being that it is not the name as used in most sources. Actually this one's used in hardly ANY sources.

MK also messed with the ""http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_constitution_of_May_3,_1791&redirect;=no ""Polish constitution of May 3, 1791""] redirect which makes it pretty much impossible to manually move the article back to its original title without admin tools. Whether this was done deliberately as a salting or not, I have no idea.

The thing is that in order to move this article what SHOULD'VE been done is to have a proper REQUEST MOVE. Now we got a title which is not used by any sources and trouble moving it back.

Here's the break down on stats:

For ""Polish-Lithuanian constitution of May 3, 1791""  we have 2 hits. That's right two. And one of them is Moliere's Tartuffe so I don't think particularly relevant. The other hit, from Time-Life books, doesn't even have snippet preview so we can't check whether it's actually about the topic.

For """"Polish constitution of May 3, 1791""  we have 39 hits. That's thirty nine. Browsing through some of the hits, a lot of these seem to be very outdated (i.e. contemporary with the document).

For ""Constitution of May 3, 1791"", the original title that the article passed GA under, we have  87 hits. That's eighty-seven. 

For ""Constitution of May 3"", without the 1791,  we get 114 hits. And it looks like most, if not all, of them are in fact about this document.

So ""Constitution of May 3"" or ""Constitution of May 3, 1791"" greatly outnumbers other variations that have been invented here on Wikipedia. Per WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOR, and WP:NC the article should be moved back to its original title. Then if there still any doubt about what the sources call this document, someone can start a proper WP:RM. "