Talk:Hard disk drive/Archive 21

Requested move 14 March 2015

 * 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: No consensus to move title stable in its current form since article creation in 2002. Pro and con arguments merely represent the usual duel between editor's favorite WP:AT title characteristics, none of which have precedence or priority over the others. Mike Cline (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hard disk drive → Hard drive – The name "hard drive" is more commonly used than "hard disk drive." Here are the Google search results of "hard drive" vs "hard disk drive":


 * hard drive - 271 million results
 * hard disk drive - 35.1 million results

Google Books:


 * hard drive - 2,380,000 results
 * hard disk drive - 113,000 results

Relisted. Favonian (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC). Sam Hnri (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: One of the most common acronyms for this subject is HDD, which stands for the long name, "hard disc drive". Steel1943  (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: "Hard disk drive" is the right term, and the above results only reflect a shorter form commonly used in various texts and also in Wikipedia articles: once "hard drive drive" is mentioned in a text, it's common to shorten it to "hard drive" or—‌even more commonly—‌just "drive" or "HDD". However, that's by no means a reason for renaming this article. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose it's commonly called a "hard disk", with variants "hard disc", "hard disc drive", "hard disk drive", "fixed drive", "fixed disc drive", "fixed disk drive", "fixed disc", "fixed disk" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I was originally going to agree with 65.94.43.89 that "hard disk" is the most common terminology, but it seems that all major manufacturers do indeed lists their products as "hard drives" or "drives". Perhaps it's best to keep it at the current, albeit slightly archaic, title as a compromise. In my opinion, this should, like solid-state drive be written in properly hyphenated fashion: "hard-disk drive" (it's a hard disk that's being driven, not a disk drive that's hard), but no one seems to do this. (Interestingly, for removable media, there is a clear distinction between the two terms: a floppy disk is something very different than a floppy drive; the same would probably apply those old DEC hard drives with removable hard disks.) —Ruud 11:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never seen punctuated form "hard-disk drive" used anywhere. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Me neither, it's just a personal opinion. —Ruud 12:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: "Hard disk drive" is the accurate term even though it's called Hard disk for convenience. It's a drive containing collection of disks. Therefore "Hard disk drive" is the correct term.-- Chamith  (talk)  12:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose: Tom94022 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This title is more descriptive. We have a redirect for "Hard drive" for those who type that. Jeh (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Further comment in response to some !votes below: Even policies can be overridden by consensus if it's for good reasons. WP:COMMONNAME in particular is hardly fodder for an "open and shut" case. It is full of not-absolutes, using words like "Wikipedia prefers" and "Wikipedia does not necessarily use..." (emph. added). Further, the "common" in COMMONNAME explicitly refers not to common usage by the general public, but to the name used commonly "in reliable sources". n.b.: Google hit counts are not reliable sources for establishing a "common name", because there is no way of knowing if the appearances they're counting are in what we would consider reliable sources.
 * In addition, many of the examples given at COMMONNAME are not really parallel to this case. "Hard drive", "Hard disk", and "Hard disk drive" are all recognizably very similar, such that no one is going to arrive at this article, look at the title, and immediately think "Oh, wrong place... I wanted the article on hard drives." (Or "...hard disks.") That is the situation COMMONNAME is trying to avoid, and that just isn't going to happen here. The same can't be said for, to quote a few of the examples at COMMONNAME: "Bono" vs. "Paul Hewson", "Cat Stevens" vs. "Yusuf Islam" or "Steven Georgiou", "Lady Gaga" vs. "Stefani Germanotta", "Syahrini" vs. "Rini Fatimah Jaelani", etc. Granted there are a few there that are more parallel to this case, like "Liberace" vs. "Wladziu Liberace"... but there are far more that are not... and this is not my only argument against "Hard drive" or "Hard disk".
 * As for WP:CONCISE, there is no absolute requirement there for the shortest string of words, let alone the fewest number of characters (I refer to this, possibly the silliest-while-still-arguably-serious argument I've ever seen in a talk page discussion; I'm still not sure if the IP was being facetious or not). What CONCISE really says is: "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area.". (emph. added.) We have that title now.
 * Even if we would be lead to "Hard drive", there is another problem: COMMONNAME says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." (emph. added) I submit that "hard drive" is ungrammatical and inaccurate because on its face it appears to refer to "a drive that is hard", making no reference to the disks. And "hard disk" seems to refer to just the platters. That leaves us with "Hard disk drive" as an unambiguous, accurate, grammatical, instructive, reasonably concise, and certainly not uncommon name for the mechanism plus the platters.
 * Finally, article renames are at least moderately disruptive, and so should be avoided unless there is good reason for them. That is lacking here. "Iffen it ain't broke, don't fix it." Jeh (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hard drives are a product, not just a wikipedia title. Common names are preferred on wikipedia, regardless of their (acknowledged) technical shortcomings. The product name in use nowadays is "hard drive," according to large manufacturers, large retailers, and google counts of web references across all sources. 71.128.35.13 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. A couple of points. First off, a note to everyone: move requests are not decided by majority, but agreement with WP policies and guidelines. And there are two very, very compelling arguments in support of the move. The first is WP:CONCISE, which supports shorter titles when possible. I cannot see how the word "disk" is necessary to clarify what the title is, putting it in violation of WP:CONCISE. It is also less WP:NATURAL. We use the common name at Wikipedia, and the common name for a hard disk drive is indeed (by FAR)... hard drive. This sure seems open-and-shut to me. Red Slash 17:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "hard drive" fails WP:CONCISE because "hard disk" is shorter. And you didn't even examine "hard disk" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, "hard drive" is much less WP:NATURAL than "hard disk drive". Hard drive what?  A car? :)  It may be shortened to "hard drive" only when undoubtedly referring to a hard disk drive, that is, when "hard disk drive" is already mentioned; thus, "hard drive" does not fit well as an article title. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here, common name guideline is not applicable if that widely used term is technically incorrect. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA clearly says that article titles should be precise. I don't have to repeat why it's incorrect as it's already mentioned below by Dsimic.-- Chamith  (talk)  09:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Hard drive is the common name; several of the oppose votes concede that. Also note WP:TECHNICAL would seem to favor using common name over a more technical term, particularly in a case like this where they are equally correct. -- Calidum  03:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be common, but it isn't completely correct; it's similar to how "IP address" is commonly shortened to "IP", which is technically incorrect. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just tech nerd proscription, pure and simple. Languages don't work that way. When it comes to everyday objects, users define what things are called, not specialists. Peter Isotalo 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, within closed circles you can call an IP address however you want: apple, orange, or just "a". However, if Wikipedia had more "tech nerds", the overall quality of articles would be way higher that it currently is.  In other words, dumbing the articles down doesn't help anyone –  this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of colloqualisms. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're applying your personal views on languages here. "IP" is a colloquialism, but in an average newspaper article, it would always be "IP address". However, the same article would use the term "hard drive" without anyone considering it informal. "Hard disk drive" is an obvious specialist term. Peter Isotalo 00:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do I need to remind you that Wikipedia articles aren't "average newspaper articles"? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what they are: Make technical articles understandable. This looks more like terminology snobbery than concern for readers. Peter Isotalo 00:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Get real. It's ridiculous to say that letting one word go is going to make this article's kilobytes of content more understandable. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Get real. In fact, this is a real product, not just a technical concept or an abstract article heading. They sell hundreds of millions of them every year. Manufacturers know the right name is the common one that people understand, the one that they buy. That name is "hard drive," in the retail sales channels. The abbreviation is HDD, for the same reasons.71.128.35.13 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think that people are buying them just because "disk" was lost somewhere? Most of the consumers have no idea or care about what's inside their computers at all. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Customers may not know what's inside until it crashes, but manufacturers name products with care and deliberation. The choice of the name "hard drive" isn't haphazard. &mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even Seagate uses "hard disk drive" – see a screenshot.  Western Digital also uses it. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes they use the name, but which name is more common? Most observers here agree that hard drive is more common. For example, look at http://www.toshiba.com/us/storage http://www.seagate.com/products/desktop-storage/desktop-internal-drives/ http://www.wdc.com/en/products/internal/desktop/ http://www.newegg.com/Hard-Drives/Category/ID-15?Tid=6670&mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, and I respect it. Though, it's perfectly fine to have different opinions. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * hard disk is the common name, note disk -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Might be common, but it is not completely correct; "hard disk" is just the rotating part (platters) of a hard disk drive. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are hard disk platters -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends on the context, but they are hard disks; may also be shortened to just "platters". &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Google Ngram viewer: a near tie between "hard disk" and "hard drive" (the first currently wins by a margin, although the latter is on a rise and the former on a decline). —Ruud 18:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's good to see the same Google Ngram results for 1950–2008 (you've provided 1950–2000 results) – see a large dip "hard disk" and "hard drive" took after 2000?  That's quite interesting. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It could be that there is simply relatively less computer literature in Google's index for recent years. Either because less was published or because less was indexed. For example, Google Books has scanned many computer magazines from the '80s and '90, but there seems to be less available for more recent years (because of copyright concerns, I guess). The ratio between "hard disk" and "hard drive" is therefore probably a more interesting number here than the "absolute" numbers (absolute in quotes, as Google Ngrams plots a percentage relative to the entire corpus for a given year, not truly absolute numbers). —Ruud 14:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Crystal clear case of WP:ASTONISH. The average English-speaker would never write or say "hard disk drive" and "hard drive" is not an informal term. This is a clear example of language biased towards specialists and computer aficionados. Peter Isotalo 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't get me wrong, but an educated English speaker would know that "hard disk drive" is the correct term, at least by linking it to a very common "HDD" acronym. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. The cite of WP:ASTONISH is almost as silly as the one saying that CONCISE requires "Hard disk" instead of "hard drive" because it saves a letter. Have you actually read that page? As an example of the sort of thing it advises you not to do, it gives: "For example, do not write, "Most people in Fargo, N.D. are dead. That is, dead tired by the end of a long work day"." Do you really think that is a parallel case? Nobody familiar with the term "Hard drive" or "Hard disk" is going to be "astonished", let alone "misled", at "hard disk drive". At "Stefani Germanotta" instead of "Lady Gaga", sure. Not this. Jeh (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. I'm an educated English speaker and I have never used the term "hard disk drive" or "HDD" in writing or speech. I can think of dozens of extremely specific terms from my field of expertise (records management, archiving, history), but I would never dream of letting any of those supersede commonly used terms because they are more "correct" to me as a specialist.
 * I hate to tell you, but WP:COMMONNAME applies to your favorite topics too. "Not this"-exceptions don't exist. Peter Isotalo 00:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you could obviously add some more computing-related education to your portfolio. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I countered the COMMONNAME argument above. No one has countered my counter. Jeh (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't counter it. You merely expressed your opinion. Nobody is obliged to say, well Jeh says this and nobody's countered it so it must be true! We have said why we support the move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My "opinions" consist 90% of the direct quotes from COMMONNAME and CONCISE (which few of the "support"ers referring to them here seem to actually have read in detail). If you think that COMMONNAME requires that the most common name in general usage be used, you are flatly mistaken. It does not. Jeh (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Hard drive is easily the commonest name. Whether it's not the most accurate name or not the name used by IT professionals (and I would dispute the latter, given I know several and know what they call it in everyday conversation) is completely and utterly irrelevant to what Wikipedia calls the article. We use WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Jeh's explanation above, which defeats the relevance of WP:COMMONNAME. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't defeat the relevance at all. It's merely one editor's opinion with which other editors clearly disagree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then please provide a factual explanation why Jeh's line of thoughts doesn't hold water. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As the Google Ngrams graph linked above shows, "hard drive" is about as common as "hard disk". Why would support renaming it to the former instead of the latter? —Ruud 16:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Google is not God and is not held to be God on Wikipedia! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure if I follow you. Are you arguing that the Ngrams count is mistaken and that "hard drive" is in fact more common terminology than "hard disk"? —Ruud 16:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, that's a very good question. If we take the renaming route, how do we decide whether it should be "hard disk" or "hard drive"? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, just look at the name used by the manufacturers and the large retailers. The name is hard drive. Because they trumpet the product name everywhere, it makes the decision pretty easy. It's their call.—71.128.35.13 (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep at "hard disk drive" Okay, I've read some of the arguments made here and given it some thought. While I initially disliked the current article title, I think it should not be renamed for two reasons (one pragmatic and one more principal):
 * There are two equally common names: "hard disk" and "hard drive" and there is really no objective criteria for us to prefer one over the other as the article title. The longer title "hard disk drive", while less common than both, is still not a rare term and makes for a good compromise.
 * This article discusses the complete history of hard disk drives. While it doesn't really matter if you refer to a modern HDD as a "disk" or a "drive", this distinction does become important for earlier HDDs which sometimes consisted of a separate drive and a removable disk pack. I think this is a strong argument for preferring a more pedantic title over what is common usage for referring to modern HDDs.
 * —Ruud 17:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * These two pictures on the right clearly show how much everyday language can be distant from hard encyclopedic facts. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As a side note, there's a modern technology equivalent (to a certain extent, of course) for old HDDs with separate drives and disk packs – Quantum RDX uses so-called "cartridges" and docks.  Sure thing, those cartridges are pretty much self-contained HDDs, but there's a resemblance to old HDDs. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is not about history of HDD, it's about hard drives. They're a product you find in stores. The manufacturers sell them under the name "hard drive," and most people buy them under that name too. Why wouldn't this article conform to the product name as it's known nowadays? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.35.13 (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is also about the history of hard disk drives. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is mainly about a real product today. If your main interest is historical, you could direct your attention to History of hard disk drives. &mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not just about modern stuff, it involves quite a bit of HDD history. Also, current article title goes along with History of hard disk drives, what's just another argument against renaming the article. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless, progress is swift. The History of hard disk drives article is separate from this one. This article is about hard drives in the present. Baggage from the past shouldn't prevent recognition and adoption of the common name today. This article should move on to reflect the present language usage.&mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Progress doesn't need to destroy history, which isn't baggage. Again, this is encyclopedia, not a newspaper. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per the logic in several of the above oppositions. "Hard disk drive" is a more accurate and technical term. — Lightgodsy (TALK CONT ) 18:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * strong Oppose. A USB data stick is also a hard drive, but it is certainly not a hard disk drive. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – no need to move to more ambiguous title. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Titles should adhere to common usage over technical accuracy. Customers, all major manufacturers and most large retailers use "hard drive," commonly abbreviated as HDD not HD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.35.13 (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Where does then the second "D" in "HDD" come from? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The second "D" is for "Disambiguation," to prevent confusion with other acronyms like Heavy Duty, High Definition, etc. Etymology has nothing to do with this issue: what's the common usage for, the name of, this product? The major manufacturers and the retailers certainly know: they've a very sound economic motive to figure this out. English dictionaries and wikipedia don't prescribe or define usage, they merely describe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.35.13 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's simply nonsense. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear some snideness, but perhaps my comment was actually nonsensical and difficult to understand. To put it simply, the common product name is “hard drive,” while the acronym is HDD. If the etymology of the acronym is hard to accept, one can use the full name. &mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "HDD" can't be an acronym for "hard drive"; look up for "acronym" in a dictionary. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes acronyms have a life of their own that owes little to etymology. SEAL, laser and radar come to mind. While HDD and hard disk drive both work, the common name "hard drive" should be the name of this article.&mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, just more nonsense. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, anon. "HDD" is an initialism for "Hard disk drive", and well you know it. Jeh (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is and I do.&mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We won't invoke WP:COMMONNAME to move Telephone to Phone.  Hard disk drive is accurate and unambiguous -- hard disk and hard drive are less so.  Non-technical readers will understand the current title perfectly.  There's simply no benefit provided by this proposal.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We should indeed invoke WP:COMMONNAME for hard drives. Phones aren't relevant to this discussion. "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)" Hard drive is the most commonly used name, without a doubt.71.128.35.13 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To repeat: Certainly "hard drive" is common in everyday use, but COMMONNAME does not depend on everyday use. Note also the word "prefers". That's not an absolute. Even our hard-and-fast rules can be overridden by consensus, and this isn't a hard-and-fast rule. Also, COMMONNAME says: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." "Hard disk" could refer to just the platters, and "Hard drive" makes little sense grammatically. "Hard disk drive" is the least ambiguous and most accurate name. Jeh (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a little ambiguous and inaccurate. But hard drive does not refer to anything else in wikipedia. WD, Seagate and most English speakers are using "hard drive." This article should follow their lead, not stubbornly prescribe hard disk drive for over-accuracy and phantom disambiguation.&mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just as while "phone" is more common that "telephone", the later is more recognizable as the definitive subject.  "Phone" is just short-cut common use for "telephone", just as "hard drive" is a common short-cut for "hard disk drive".  We don't invoke COMMONNAME for "phone" for the same reasons we should not do so for "hard drive".  There is simply zero benefit for the proposed name change.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is zero reason to hang on to the old title, because the old one is not more recognizable as the definitive subject. That's why WD, Seagate and Toshiba sell hundreds of millions of hard drives annually, not hard disk drives. There is simply zero real benefit for clinging to the less common name.&mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The reasons are actually numerous, as repeatedly described many times during this whole discussion. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The name of the article should concern the user's benefit, only. COMMONNAME was created to minimize confusing the user that they have somehow gotten to the wrong page.  "Hard disk drive" affirms that they have the right page, where "Hard drive" or "Hard disk" is slightly less affirming, so has some slight detriment and no benefit.  There is nothing to fix here, but there is time being wasted.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The right title choice is important, and updating the title is not a waste of time. You are claiming wrongly that COMMONNAME has one criteria: precision or disambiguation. Read the guideline, don't just cherry-pick it and you'll see that it actually has five criteria:
 * 1.Recognizability – Hard disk drive is not more recognizable than hard drive.
 * 2.Naturalness – Hard drive is more natural. Titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English, and hard drives are usually called hard drives nowadays.
 * 3.Precision – Hard drive is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify subject. There is really no advantage, zero advantage, of Hard disk drive over Hard drive for precision or disambiguation.
 * 4.Conciseness – Hard drive is more concise.
 * 5.Consistency – Hard drive is consistent with similar articles' titles
 * Obviously, this article has little or no reason (technical accuracy is a phantom reason here) not to use the common name, hard drive.&mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Brief replies:
 * Maybe it isn't more recognizable, but isn't less either.
 * It isn't more natural, in fact it's grammatically incorrect.
 * "Hard disk drive" is more precise.
 * "Hard disk" or "HDD" would be even more compact, so that isn't an argument.
 * What other articles? That makes little sense.
 * &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If a more recognizable name were to be had, WD, Seagate and Toshiba would surely use it. So this leads us to conclude that hard drive is the most recognizable (and profitable) name. With billions of dollars of revenue at stake, this is not just a question for ivory tower wikipedia editors.
 * It's natural because it's common. In English, and in Wikipedia article titles, grammar rules don't trump real world usage.
 * So what? Hard drive is sufficiently precise.
 * But those less common terms aren't even candidates for this title. So your argument consists of red herrings and decoys. The choice is hard drive or hard disk drive, and the former is more compact.
 * You're right, the titles of other technical articles aren't consistent either. So, hard drive is as (in)consistent as they are.&mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Sufficiently precise." Yeah, like a "C" grade is "sufficient" to pass (but nothing to brag about). What a mediocre goal that is! To be sufficiently precise! (As bit by infinitesimal bit, Wikipedia contributes to the dumbing-down of the population.)
 * If "sufficiently precise" is a valid argument, then I will argue that "Hard disk drive" is "sufficiently common". Jeh (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @71.128.35.13: I'll no longer argue with you as that just wastes my time without making anyone wiser. You have your opinion, that's fine, you've voted and I've voted –  and we'll see what happens.
 * @Jeh: Right, "sufficiently precise" cannot be a valid argument as all three candidates for the article title ("hard disk drive", "hard drive", and "hard disk") are at least sufficiently precise. Also, I totally agree that following the "trends" is pretty much dumbing the whole population down bit by bit. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Aren't the SSDs taking over? Perhaps we should delete this article soon. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, but a little ahead of your time. SSDs are gaining market share rapidly based on revenue, and one day this article will merge with History of hard disk drives. Some future technology, possibly something other than SSDs, will replace hard drives. At least for the time being, they sell hundreds of millions of hard drives annually, and this article title should use the product's common name. According to WD, Seagate and Toshiba, the name is hard drive. It's their call: they know what their customers are buying. &mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What I wrote about SSDs and article deletion was a joke, not something to be taken seriously. There will be no reasons for merging this article anywhere; this is encyclopedia, not a newspaper. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no reasons yet, but history teaches that change happens, technology obsoletes and language evolves. It's the rule, not the exception. This article will be wholly historical in a few more decades. Most information technologies aside from pencil and paper last less than a century, and this article already carries almost six decades of historical baggage. SSDs aren't immune to obsolescence, either.&mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How many times do we need to repeat that Wikipedia isn't a newspaper? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Newspaper articles are updated daily. Wikipedia articles titles should be updated as needed.&mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's delete all articles of purely historical interest. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This proposal lacks even historical interest. Can we delete it?  (Okay, "close" it?)  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your proposal lacks any merit, except to close off a discussion which you find tiresome or irksome. Please stand by patiently, while others who have an interest in this question reach a decision in due course. Please bear with us.&mdash; 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not taking this as seriously as I should. The proposal was done in Good Faith, and we'll follow the established procedures to its conclusion.  No one wants this reopened just because there were some shortcuts.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - This is a straightforward RM. The suggested name, Hard drive, is demonstrably congruous with WP:COMMONNAME. Common names take precedence over technical names. As an example, take Trisomy 21, a medical technical name that we do not use, opting instead to use Down's syndrome which is the common name. Mbcap (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose as Hard disk drive is the correct term. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:49, 28 March 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.