Talk:Lyra (virtual assistant)

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 August 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Justin.mota (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
Staplebattery (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Renaming?

This page was created under Indigo (virtual assistant) and recently moved to Lyra (virtual assistant), apparently – as stated here by an editor who claims to represent the company, Artificial Solutions – because the software was recently rebranded under this new name. Unfortunately, this leaves the page in an unmaintainable state, because the renaming is not explained, and all the sources used in the article speak of "Indigo" only. Currently, we don't even have a reliable source saying that the new "Lyra" is in fact the same product as the former "Indigo", let alone explaining why and how it was renamed. So, for now, I see only two options here: either we find a source substantiating the identity of the products, and change the lead sentence to something like "Lyra, until 2017 marketed under the name Indigo, ..."; or we move the page back and continue to speak of "Indigo", because a software called "Indigo" is in fact the only one we have any reliable sources about. (pinging @Anthony Appleyard:). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Shall I move it back to Indigo (virtual assistant) until we find more about what is going on in this company? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, thanks, I can do that myself if the need arises; for the moment I'm undecided and I'd like to hear from that company representative or other editors before I act further. I just pinged you because, unfortunately, this hasn't been the first time that your processing of allegedly "uncontroversial" move requests has resulted in problems. I realize these requests must be a lot of work to sift through, but I really wonder if it would be possible for you to make it a habit to give them a bit more of a sanity check before processing, because I've often seen requests there acted upon, seemingly uncritically and unquestioned, when they weren't "uncontroversial" at all and should never have been listed in this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]