Talk:Parallel Element Processing Ensemble
The article really needs a paragraph on the final current disposition of PEPE: is it still currently in use, was it scrapped (when?), was it really vapor, etc.
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Disposition
The article really needs a paragraph on the final current disposition of PEPE: is it still currently in use, was it scrapped (when?), was it really vapor, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.232.210.150 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Jeh (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Parallel element processing ensemble → Parallel Element Processing Ensemble – Tony blew it; now we need an RM to move it back. Sources verify that PEPE was a specific computer, not just an acronym for a type or technology. Dicklyon (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support. indeed, PEPE is a proper name, not generic, and therefore should have each word capitalized per WP:TITLEFORMAT. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support. As per Dicklyon's rationale. Nageh (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support and suggest quick closure by an admin. This was my fault. Tony (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support. It was completely obvious that the title was a proper name and each word should be capitalized. mbeychok (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. I looked in sources to decide. It's easy to see why Tony might interpret it as generic; but he should have checked sources to see how it's treated. I say this because there have been many other articles that Tony downcased, when others claimed it was proper name, and my checking of sources found that it was not consistently capitalized in sources and therefore Tony was right; in most cases, the capitalized uses are in defining the acronym, and that's not enough to make something a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 21:01, 2 January 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.