Talk:International Innovation Index

Discussion about a recent technical move (now done)
The following thread has been copied from WP:Requested moves/Technical requests on 11 May, 2014. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (Grouping these two move requests together per my response following them.) Steel1943  (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Global Innovation Index (Boston Consulting Group) → International Innovation Index  – According to the official source, that's the correct name. – YJAX (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Global Innovation Index (INSEAD) → Global Innovation Index  – Again, this is the official name according to the source. – YJAX (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to contest these moves purely on the fact that these requests are malformed. The first move target, International Innovation Index, is currently a redirect to Global Innovation Index, a disambiguation page, and the second target, the aforementioned Global Innovation Index, is as aforementioned, a disambiguation page. Since these move requests essentially establish a new primary topic for the term "Global Innovation Index", this move request is inherently controversial. Also, what is to happen to the current contents and edit histories of Global Innovation Index? Is this content moving to a new title, such as Global Innovation Index (disambiguation) to preserve the edit history attributions per Attribution? Steel1943  (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There used to be a confusion over the official names of these two indexes (one calls itself "global" while the other calls itself "international"), which is why somebody put the source's names (Boston consulting group and INSEAD) to help differentiate them. But that is now unnecessary since the official name for the first one is actually International Innovation Index, not Global Innovation Index. I'm not sure if you can call this controversial. There's certainly nobody objecting it and the move is for adding clarity and removing confusing/incorrect names. The reason for moving both of them is to preserve edit histories, that's correct. YJAX (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying. However, there is just one major issue that I can see that may cause bad links: at the present time, disambiguation page Global Innovation Index still has some incoming links via redirect International Innovation Index: they may need to be addressed prior to these moves occurring to assess if they are correct or incorrect by disambiguating them. Steel1943  (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As for articles linking into International Innovation Index, they seem fine and relevant to the Boston Consulting Group's index. The only thing perhaps necessary would be to add links to INSEAD's article after moving them. What exactly do you suggest we should disambiguate to see if they're correct or not? The incoming links? YJAX (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I only see two (one on Global R&D management and one on Amritt), so it just depends on figuring out where those two links go, and either fixing them, or leaving them (provided that the INSEAD topic is the correct topic which those links refer.) Steel1943  (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...And I just looked at both, and both links are in a "See also" section on their respective articles, so they are most likely correct where they stand, and should probably have the link to the other topic (International Innovation Index, provided that these moves occur) added to the sections. Steel1943  (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think they're relevant to Boston Consulting's article, if you read jbnnthem through. They have very weak to no relevance. I have removed links on both Global R&D Management and Amritt. YJAX (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: If an admin decides to close this as a technical move, it would be rather simple to have 'International Innovation Index' and 'Global Innovation Index' be the titles of two articles. It does not appear there will be much of a problem fixing up the incoming links. It's my guess that the existing DAB page at Global Innovation Index would be deleted per WP:CSD. There might be hatnotes created to link the two articles. If these two indexes are widely used, it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources that refer to them.  That could remedy the current weakness on external sourcing for both articles.  EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the user above, there were no major issues with incoming links and the only two that were raised have been resolved. Massyparcer (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

fkjjhf]]u[k]