This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The History section is usually after the introduction of something whereas here it is near the bottom. However the section "Adoption" is actually historical. Sam Tomato (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The article seems to cite Google's deprecation of NPAPI as evidence for this, but I don't think it should be described as deprecated in the first sentence unless Microsoft has declared it such.--2001:630:53:78:6054:93C2:A80C:ADDC (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason why we use Microsoft Silverlight over just Silverlight (a redirect to this page)? There doesn't seem to be any other article with that name aside from a (to me unnecessary) disambiguation. I rarely see the combination with Microsoft, more often simply Silverlight. Silverlight is the product name, not Microsoft Silverlight.–Totie (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: There seems to be consensus on keeping it how it is and I would only approve this if there wasnt a standard as set with Microsoft Windows.(non-admin closure) Tortle (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Microsoft Silverlight → Silverlight – “Silverlight” currently redirects to this page. The only other unrelated page I found is Terry Silverlight. There also is a disambiguation page that might as well be deleted, as it only mentions a fictional weapon of the Runescape game and the relevance of mentioning it there is not really apparent. The related category also uses the short form. If you look at Microsoft’s product website, it is consistently called just Silverlight, with the exception of several logos that mention the company name alongside of it. Federal US and EU/European word marks are for Silverlight as well. Across Wikipedia both names are used, but in running text it is always shortened to just Silverlight. A quick web search reveals the same and I would assert that it’s the common name and the addition of the company name is incidental.–Totie (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Totie you are right and I apologise for overstating that case. None the less I suspect that "Microsoft Silverlight" would be universally more recognisable than just "Silverlight" and I think that my search also gives indication of "Microsoft Silverlight" as being the subject's most CRN.
If you look at the results though, I mostly see that “Microsoft Silverlight” is used in the page title, whereas in text they just use Silverlight. On technical websites is mostly see just Silverlight as well, which is what prompted me to suggest the title change. Even if we assume that both are used 50/50 and it’s difficult to ascertain the common name, would you say that Silverlight is ambiguous and the natural disambiguation is necessary? I fail to find anything other than Microsoft Silverlight, the Runescape weapon and the person I mentioned above.–Totie (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I would say the WP:COMMONNAME is "Microsoft Silverlight", as that's how I frequently see it being referred to as. Further, this product is obsolete, so will be always decreasing in prominence ever more. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Given that it’s difficult to ascertain the common name in this case (I disagree with that point), do you think that the title “Silverlight” is ambiguous and requires adding Microsoft? There are many products and services on Wikipedia that we don’t refer to by the manufacturer/developer, unless it’s necessary for the disambiguation.–Totie (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Within the limited context of Microsoft's product website I would expect to it just to be referred to by its product name, and the same would apply to people involved in selling and writing for Microsoft's product range. In the larger context of a global encyclopedia, however, the name we currently have is the minimum required to describe what the article is about. --Nigelj (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it the “minimum required” though? “Silverlight” is recognisable whether we add the company name or not, it’s natural as it is also commonly referred to and the official product name, it’s not ambiguous (at least barely, as there is no such thing as ‘silver light’ or ‘silverlight’ and the only other use within Wikipedia is the person Terry Silverlight), it’s also concise and not longer than necessary and it fits with other products where we don’t add the company name either.–Totie (talk)
Support. "Silverlight" is not an ambiguous title, and there is no common name between the two so the official name should take precedent. ONR(talk) 18:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Whether "Silverlight" is ambiguous or not is not an issue here. Obama redirects to Barack Obama despite having other meanings because it is the primary topic of the term. If the common name of the product is Microsoft Silverlight and that is the primary topic of Silverlight, then it is fine to stay there, with "Silverlight" redirecting there. bd2412T 19:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Precisely and I argue that Microsoft Silverlight is not the common name. It is not convincingly demonstrable. A web search, even a Wikipedia search, reveals a strong use of just “Silverlight” in many places, including Microsoft’s own product pages and the technology websites that talk about it. Even the trademarks denote Silverlight as the product name. When I look on my system, is see both as well. There is thus no clear preference for either and given the lack of ambiguity here and elsewhere, I see no reason why we should prefer Microsoft Silverlight over just Silverlight when we could use either of them.–Totie (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2015 (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.