Talk:PC World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PC World article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

On 4 July 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to PCWorld. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Requested move

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: moved to PC World. Jenks24 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

PCWorld (magazine) → PCWorldPCWorld or PC World– The styling of the spacing is unique to the magazine. See Wikipedia:Title#Disambiguation. It also has more page views than the retailer ( and vs. . Curiously the old title of page prior to March, PC World (magazine), still gets more hits than its present location. This is odd since most clicks come from Google, not internal links. See the St. Louis move for example: . Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment do you suggest moving the retailer and the disambiguation page as well? (say to P.C. World for disambiguation) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not necessary. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose articles should likely be located at PC World (magazine), as to where it was located pre-March 2012. The text styling is unnecessary per MOS:TM.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I favor PC World, per IHT and AP. The magazine is the clear primary topic. There is no need for disambiguation. Kauffner (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I would equally support PC World as primary topic.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2012 (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.

Requested move 26 September 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved - no consensus to move (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

PC World → PCWorldPCWorld – The magazine/website refers to itself as PCWorld not ~~PC World~~. The previous decision to rename the article was wrong. The above section regarding trademark/branding is correct. Further, this help distinguish this article from PC World (retailer), which does use the space. Senator2029 “Talk” 16:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Tentative oppose: The rationale that was provided has no mention of how the topic is referred to in independent reliable sources. The self-published styling is irrelevant. MOS:TM applies, and the current form is more aligned with ordinary English styling. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose based on current argument which isn't based on secondary sources. Widefox; talk 11:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 July 2025

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist🩸 (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

PC World → PCWorldPCWorld – I propose renaming PC World to PCWorld to reflect the magazine's current official stylization and branding. The website and publication now consistently use "PCWorld" as a single word.

Rationale

The official site is branded as PCWorld (see https://www.pcworld.com).
Most modern references use the one-word version.
It aligns with Wikipedia's policy on using the most commonly recognizable name (WP:COMMONNAME). Icaldonta (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per MOS:TM. We should use ordinary English formatting, even when a different styling is "official". See also Ngrams that fail to show that the proposed styling is used consistently in sources. The same proposal was considered and rejected six years ago, and no new evidence has been provided by the nominator. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force and WikiProject Magazines have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rationale

Related Articles