The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
That page states: "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names."
Further down on the same page: "Parenthetical disambiguation: If natural disambiguation is not possible, [...]" Clearly, natural disambiguation (used by the proposed title) takes precedence over parenthetical disambiguation (used by the current title).
The proposed name is clearly not made-up, as it has multiple citations from different sources right in the article itself.
Furthermore, it cannot be classified as obscure as the name is used by multiple reliable sources, including multiple independent ones (note that this is actually the much more stringent test for notability!) and is also very likely to be entered as a search term because of Microsoft's tendency to put its company name in front of its product names in general.
Finally, as far as the nominator is aware, there is no more appropriate name that could be used as the title instead and that would meet the preceding criteria.
Therefore, in the view of the nominator, this move must be performed per policy. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. According to OP's quotation above, validity is not enough for the title; it must be commonly used as well. "Microsoft Magnifier" is obscure because this form is rare both in writing and speech. (Compare these two:  and  with ) Non-natural because the natural form of a Wikipedia article about an OS component is Title (OS name) like Chess (Mac OS) and Notepad (Windows). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Dog'E' is being quite sloppy with his references, as they apply to Windows 2000, XP, and 95/98 (yes, really. Read the fine print at the bottom) respectively. As of Vista and later it's just called "Magnifier", as established by: all of the remaining references; the window title in the Win8 screen capture featured in the article; the tool's own built-in Help (do I need to include a screen cap of that?) etc. I have changed the lede accordingly (it now says "formerly Microsoft Magnifier", a claim supported by all refs in the article). btw, "Microsoft Magnifier" suggests a separate add-on program, like "Microsoft Word", and Magnifier is not that. Heck, even WordPad and Notepad don't put "Microsoft" in front of their names. Jeh (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Prefer Windows Magnifier, but weak support move as proposed. RedSlash 17:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. For ten years, Microsoft has been removing "Microsoft" from its titles and now Dogmatic is adding it back? This is definitely everything but natural. Fleet Command (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. It is just "Magnifier", and it breaks the naming pattern that Fleet Command and Codename Lisa have brought up. (edit: Upon further review, I actually would support moving to the more specific disambiguation "Windows component"). But yeah, the title of the main window on the XP version does say "Microsoft Magnifier", but every other usage just uses "Magnifier". Don't you love it when even MS itself is inconsistent? ViperSnake151 Talk 17:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding User:Codename Lisa's opinion posted above: The third sentence falls under Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - if there are other pages like that, then perhaps they should be moved as well. (Oh, and by the way, Notepad (Windows) is a redirect.) The evidence provided for the other two sentences is irrelevant as moving the page to "Windows Magnifier" is not being proposed here (and such a proposal would probably be opposed by the user in question anyways). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Quotation from Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: "The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others: Other stuff sometimes exist according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them." In this case, the reason is consistency which will ease navigation. As for the other evidence, which you call irrelevant, I don't comment. The comparison speaks for itself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but you should demonstrate that those pages are not policy-violating themselves in that case. You have not even attempted to do so. Also, one of your own examples doesn't follow the pattern you mentioned, as I just pointed out. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense! That's what criminals on parole are supposed to do because of their record. (Advice: Don't sail those waters!) If they were policy-violation, you'd have pointed it out. But the fact that we are here and you are resorting to establishing consensus shows that we're where policies do not mind. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding User:Dogmaticeclectic's claim: ""Microsoft Magnifier" is also very likely to be entered as a search term because of Microsoft's tendency to put its company name in front of its product names in general." But Magnifier is not a separate product, not even a separate free add-on, so this argument is null and void. Microsoft tends to not put its company name in front of its component names. Personally I think the more likely search term is "Windows Magnifier", but the tool doesn't call itself that, either (and such a search would find this article anyway). Jeh (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
So? The technical distinction between a component and a full-fledged product is unlikely to be particularly relevant if someone is just looking for "that magnifier tool made by Microsoft" (or even "that magnifier tool in Windows"). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe not relevant or thought of by someone typing in a search. But certainly relevant to WP policies. The name "Microsoft Magnifier" implies that a) Microsoft is still calling it that and that b) following their naming conventions, it's a separate installable component (as it used to be). We can't go calling things by names that imply they are something they are not. (And btw, I seriously doubt that anyone would ever type "that magnifier tool in Windows". Don't be ridiculous as well as dogmatic, 'k?) Jeh (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem with User:Jeh's argument regarding the name in different Windows versions is that this article is not just about the most recent version of the software, but all versions of it. As such, all names this software has been known by during its entire existence are candidates for the title of this article. Perhaps it would indeed be preferable to name this article "Magnifier" per the most recent version, but that page name is already taken; hence, this alternative name is the correct one to choose for this article. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Please. Not just "the most recent version," but all versions going back to Vista. Microsoft has dropped support for XP; Microsoft has dropped the name "Microsoft Magnifier" with it. That is now an archaic, obsolete name. I don't see how it is defensible to maintain a name here that the creator of the software has dropped. Microsoft is the final authority on what the component is called; it is not within Wikipedia's prerogative to insist it still be called something else as far as the article title is concerned. There would be nothing wrong, of course, with mentioning the old names in discussing the component's history within the article. Jeh (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
And FTR, even if the name was not taken, I think "Magnifier" would be far too nonspecific (for what should be obvious reasons). I would support a move to "Magnifier (Windows component)" however. This does follow a pattern set by many other DA'd article names. Jeh (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@User:Jeh: Hmmm... that's an interesting option. Would you support moving every Windows component currently using parenthetical disambiguation in the article title, though? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If they're sufficiently parallel cases (i.e. if they are built-in components of current Windows, and Microsoft currently doesn't use "Microsoft" as part of their names), sure. I think the unadorned "(Windows)" doesn't really say what it needs to say. "(Windows component)" does. Note that re this article, searches for "Windows magnifier" will still work, as of course will "Microsoft magnifier" due to the redirect. I strongly feel though that simply moving all such articles would be disruptive; we cannot establish consensus here for all of the others. Jeh (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I think WP:BOLD would cover that type of thing - if someone objects to a move, simply revert and discuss. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I would expect at least half of such moves to be reverted immediately as "undiscussed", and when it is noticed that one editor has apparently DEcided what is best for all such articles without having much of a recent edit history with them, there will likely be accusations of POINTy disruption. So why not just skip that part of the process as unnecessary and counterproductive and go straight to discussion? Jeh (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I suppose, but then a well-written argument would need to be crafted beforehand. To start off, what were the examples you were thinking of when you mentioned the "many other" article names above? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I have to ask: Microsoft is removing "Microsoft" from its titles and Dogmatic is adding it back? Whatever it is, it isn't natural. Fleet Command (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind adding that opinion to the Survey section? Jeh (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@User:ViperSnake151: I only invited you, and only to avoid Wikipedia:Canvassing as I also invited everyone else who participated in the other discussion I just alluded to. In any case, what concerns me here is not that you participate in these types of discussions, but your seeming single-mindedness - I've rarely, if ever, seen any of you oppose each other in anything. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That isn't true. And actually, I have been working on other forms of articles lately too. But yes, me and Codename Lisa actually have had conflicts before. I objected to Codename Lisa's consideration of Windows 8.1 to be an "upgrade" (even though in terms of Windows, "upgrade" implies a payment to Microsoft for a license to forfeit their previous Windows license in exchange for one of a newer version) rather than a service pack, and we had conflicts over proper definite article usage. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I know I've disagreed with both CnL and VS in the past. Hey, whatever happened to keeping discussions about the article and not on people? Jeh (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
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.