Talk:Syncovery

I'm not sure i agree with moving this page from SuperFlexible file synchronizer to SuperFlexible. The company is called SuperFlexible, their product is consistently referred to as SuperFlexible file synchronizer. The Microsoft Windows article also isn't called Microsoft. I suggest redirecting the other way around. PizzaMan (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft is a lot larger than SuperFlexible, so you can't really apply that here. Although their company might also be called SuperFlexible their flag ship product is the SuperFlexible file synchronizer, they are not known for anything else. Further more, this article can be expanded to reference their company "Super Flexible Software Ltd. & Co. KG", just as many other company/product article combinations already do. A quick visit to their website superflexible.com instantly takes you to a page with the title of "SuperFlexible file synchronizer" which confirms that they are one and the same. I think the title is concise without being confusing. --Hm2k (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all: i forgot to thank you for looking at the article. I'm not conviced by your arguments. Of course it doesn't really matter much, because the redirect will help people find the article anyway. Do you know if/where this discussion has already been kept? In case not, I would like to explain to you why i'm not convinced...

I agree that the company is not notable apart from their flagship product. In fact i proposed to just re-reverse the redirect direction and cetrainly not to create a page about the company. But why should an encyclopedic article about a software product not refer to it's official name? Especially when the product is so rare, it's less obvious to assume the common-ness of a colloquialism for the official name. I think in most encyclopedias, an article would usually be filed under the official title of a program, book, song or whatever, with perhaps a redirect from the colloquialism. PizzaMan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look at WP:NC should help decide what the name should be. I think it's fairly obvious from that it should be as I have suggested. IE: "Use the most easily recognized name". --Hm2k (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)