Talk:PC

---

What about law firms? P.C.

)

Done: Professional corporation 129.173.193.94 16:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this page is quite long and therefore should set some priorities. PC to most people will probably mean either personal computer oder political correctness. So I suggest these bullet points should be moved to the introduction of the article. Repetition 02:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Personel computer history should with this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.55.147 (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal computer

What about redirecting Personal computer here?--Kozuch (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would a PC run Windows only? This abbreviation has always meant an x86 box, the only relation to Windows is a recent slew of Microsoft ads. KiloByte (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, KiloByte. Logically, "PC" should refer to all personal computers, regardless of the producer or CPU architecture. But in linguistics, "why" is irrelevant: People and the mainstream media start using it and there is nothing one can do about it but to report it without bias and without passing judgment on it.

By the way, modern "Mac" runs on x86. (Actually, x86-64.) Classic Mac, did run on PowerPC.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not happy about this. A personal computer running Linux is also referred to as a PC, what else to call it? At least some people/mainstream media use the term "PC" for non-Windows PCs, so I think there also should be some mention of that on this page. Lonaowna (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither am I, Lonaowna. I am starting to think may be we must make it "Personal computer" and leave it at that.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I kind of liked the contents of this version, but its style is not really in line with MOS:DAB. Maybe just "Personal computer" is indeed the best way to go, but it completely ignores the people who might come here after hearing about a "PC vs. Mac" discussion. Lonaowna (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I come here from CL's talk page and there is a conflict between her and User:StuRat over something similar to what User:Lonaowna proposes above. Only instead of pointless links to Windows and OS X, there is a link to Personal computer § "Personal computer" vs. "PC". Now, let's say nobody uses "PC" to mean Mac and Linux. (I think that's the case by the way. And I can see four sources supporting this. More can be easily found.) PC still stands for "personal computer" and that's the reason for many of entries in this dab page. So, I support this.

Now, I believe we have landed on a rough consensus here, don't you think CL? Fleet Command (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My edit, which included a source from Encyldopaedia Britanica giving a general definition of personal computer and linking it to the abbrev PC (Encyclopaedia Britannica definition), was reverted by Codename Lisa. You then reverted CL and replaced my edit, although without the ref. This was the 3rd time CL reverted, I believe. I will therefore follow this up as a 3RR violation, should she revert again. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your Britannica link belongs to trash can, StuRat. Who told you are allowed to write things that demand a ref? And you have cheeks to even mention that heap of bull about 3RR. You are the edit warrior here, not the person who finds four sources, participates in talk page discussions and even puts a compromise on the desk. Fleet Command (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Ignoring the side talk, I think you are right about the consensus and its grounds. But would you care to expound the validity of the grounds too? As you said, a lot of items are here just because one can abbreviate them into PC with or without oversight, they do not pass MOS:DABINITIALS test. Personal computer does. But product code number, Tandy Pocket Computer, List of Communist parties and many others don't. I don't mean to stray off topic. But for now, I am saying those grounds are too shaky; don't put your eggs on it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. No problems there. Fleet Command (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Penicillin?

Should this be added under abbrevations?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.95.194.88 (talk • contribs) 20 April 2009

Cleanup

• Before adding entries, please read WP:DABACRO.
• I'm not sure what the computer discussion above is about, but one link to that article should suffice as normal on a dab. Widefox; talk 09:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: Hi. I am not sure why you are linking to WP:DABACRO because it doesn't apply. Personal computer#Case of PC clearly discusses the distinct meanings of PC. Also what concerns me more than "should suffice" is whether it actually does; it doesn't. But as a compromise, I don't persist on this.

Also, IBM PC is a WP:PTM violation. I've personally never seen PC being used to mean IBM PC; in fact, publishers were careful to mention "IBM" part.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa, that's two separate points (now bulleted):

• I'm sure you agree DABACRO applies to this dab. About a third of the entries failed and were removed (~2K characters!), so it's important to inform others why not to reinsert them, or include more items in this dab not mentioned as "PC" in the articles.
• When I cleaned up the dab, I was surprised that the PC architecture wasn't mentioned, so those three items Personal computer, IBM PC compatible, IBM Personal Computer (mentioned as a "PC" in the article) seem to cover it, indented. They have "PC" hatnotes! After editing, I saw it used to be this way before, and you'd removed them. I suggest you self-revert and seek consensus here for your edit.
  • Separately, if the claim is being made that the ubiquity of Wintel means it's also called a PC (a claim not made in the lede of Wintel, seems surprising to me, is an AMD not a PC?! if not adequately sourced it should be removed) .... then that may qualify for a listing too.
    • As per User:Lonaowna above is Linux on the same hardware not a PC?!
• Alternatively Personal computer may be considered a WP:DABCONCEPT, and the PC hatnote(s) shouldn't exist due to WP:RELATED. I'm not sure if that would be helpful to readers without discussion. Widefox; talk 09:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: Hi again. Er... I'm going to use numeric entries, if you don't mind, for less a cluttered reply. I thought it is better not to intrude in your message, so you probably should count.

1. Okay, understood.

2. Personal computer is okay, but IBM PC and IBM PC compatible are not because they are specific forms of personal computers (i.e specific forms of PC). They are partial title matches. (IBM PC compatible machines cannot have ATX configuration; general PCs do.) Also, you have linked to WP:DABMENTION! Seriously, DABMENTION says "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included." PC does have an article of its own.

2.1. Are you asking this question for fun only? Because you seem smart enough to know that the meaning of a word is rarely influenced by its etymology. Example: "photoshoped" refers to a doctored/manipulated photo, with or without Adobe Photoshop. "Hoovering" is vacuum-cleaning, with or without the Hoover brand appearing on the machine. Wintel is not even a piece of hardware; it's an abstract term about an execution model consisting of Windows and x86 architecture.

2.1.1. In the expression "PC vs. Mac", "PC" strictly refers to a computer device running Microsoft Windows OS. You can still change the context of your sentence to take advantage of the double-edged meaning of PC as "personal computer". That's why we have a dab page here.

3. Not sure I know what are you talking about.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

2. This isn't necessarily the correct venue to discuss the syntax and semantics of what constitutes a PC, apart from refuting the notion that it must have ATX. Those are content discussions for the relevant article(s), not here.

...so, it really is this simple on a dab...we follow what the articles say (mostly)...and IBM PC "is the original version and progenitor of the IBM PC compatible hardware platform" ... "but because of the success of the IBM Personal Computer, the term "PC" came to mean more specifically a desktop microcomputer compatible with IBM's PC products" ... "when the PC was introduced in 1981" (emphasis my own) - so it is referred to solely as "PC" in the article, and quite explicitly defines "PC". Therefore it qualifies (per WP:DABMENTION at least....but...) ...but as the ambiguous term is synonymous with the product name it qualifies as a normal entry (with the full name preferred for initialisms over "IBM PC" per WP:MOSDAB/WP:DABREDIR). We typically do this on dabs for products as they are often known solely by the ambiguous term (rather than considering them a PTM with their manufacturer).

Personal computer has a hatnote for "PC" so the consensus appears to consider this ambiguous, and an entry here would just reflect that too.

Now, saying that, as an alternative Personal computer could be considered a broadconcept (and so examples of the concept don't need to be mentioned on the dab), but I'm not currently considering that (as we don't have a "primary meaning" / primarytopic for it and it's another discussion). At this point it really is as simple as others objecting to your edit, and asking to revert.

Your point about a genericised trademark may or may not be relevant, but again that's more a content issue. The PC architecture seems a valid entry here. We don't need ATX or other technical aspects, or multiple entries to the same article discussing it. The previous sub-bullets on this dab seemed to cover it well, and that's the version my edit agreed with, which I consider the consensus. Please revert to it, and gain consensus for your version here.

Additionally, I object to edits like this [1] which use piping - it is explicitly never done on any dabs per the basics of WP:MOSDAB.

Regards Widefox; talk 14:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

1. In case you accidentally missed it, I repeat it again: DABMENTION says: "If a topic does not have an article of its own..." Because the sense of PC to which you are alluding is already covered in personal computer article, DABMENTION cannot be construed to have warranted inclusion of IBM PC or IBM PC compatible article.
2. A bad hatnote makes no mandates for me; policies do. WP:DABRELATED says such hatenotes are forbidden. It says "Instead of using a disambiguation hatnote in such cases" resort to Wikipedia:Summary style instead. I am taking it down right now!
3. Personal computer is indeed a broad concept. So what? We are talk about this page, PC.
4. Objection to piping dismissed, in accordance to WP:DABPIPING example number 2.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A. By conflated DABMENTION and DABCONCEPT your point isn't clear. See my answer above. To clarify that, DABMENTION is not the pertinent point as the topic "IBM PC" is known solely as a "PC" in the article, hence a valid inclusion here (preferably indented due to its relation to the broader Personal computer). That's how I'd prefer it, and it was like that before your edit which I object to. Stating that it is always referred to as an "IBM PC" (and never solely as "PC") is factually incorrect - just check the article (my quotes above). Whether Personal computer is a broad concept is a separate discussion, which has merits, but as we have no primary topic for the dab PC (point C), I'm not even sure if it's relevant at this point, and seems helpful for users anyhow (as indented).

B. I think you mean WP:RELATED, where this hatnote is explicitly allowed per "This guideline does not discourage the use of disambiguation hatnotes in a situation where separate topics are related, but could nonetheless be referred to by the same title and would thus qualify for disambiguation, such as a book and its film adaptation." I've undone your change. I repeat - please gain consensus for your controvercial edits. I suggest getting more opinions.

D. which example? - we never pipe at the start of the entry per WP:MOSDAB (apart from style).

Do you have others that agree with you? as I've asked you repeatedly to self-revert. I'm not convinced by your points above. Indented items are quite useful as a compromise anyhow for such related items.

Consider the navigation for readers - they type in "PC" and they get this dab, it is somewhat WP:RECENTISM to just consider the broader (modern) concept at the dab while ignoring the historical PC platforms. They don't get to a broadconcept as there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Removing those navigation links I believe isn't helpful when the items are validly (and explicitly define) the term PC. Widefox; talk 21:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The dab was better before this edit [2]. When I cleaned up this awful mess of a dab, I coincidentally ended up with a similar cascade. I propose we restore that:

• Personal computer, a general-purpose computer for individuals
  • IBM Personal Computer, the original version and progenitor of the IBM PC compatible hardware platform
    • IBM PC compatible, computers similar to the original IBM PC etc

Widefox; talk 23:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No. In a discussion, the two sides hear each other out and try to address their concerns. You, however, ignore mine and stubbornly repeat your view. I refuse to be sucked into this repetition game. Whenever, you decided to acknowledge the existence of a dispute, I'll continue to dicuss. Otherwise, I won't reply again. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I object to your edit (and your edit below), and per WP:BRD I've asked you to revert (rather than doing so myself). I undid your removal of the hatnote on Personal computer too, so that may be best discussed here. Widefox; talk 09:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've restore the cascade (either cascade will do - this is to restore a cascade before the removal per WP:BRD). I left a note at the dab project for more opinions. Widefox; talk 11:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

User:FleetCommand : the previous cascade was before this edit [3], which I take as the old consensus. Widefox; talk 11:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

BRD does not stand for "Bold, revert, ask to self-revert"; it stands for "bold, revert, discuss" and its object is building consensus. You are not the king of Wikipedia and others have no obligation to do as you ask. Fleet Command (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a poor excuse that does not justify your lack of interest in building up consensus. Codename Lisa seems to have already participated in two discussions in this regard. If anything this poor excuse strips you of the right to have made the first edit as well. Fleet Command (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Fleet Command, please discuss the topic not editors, and WP:CIVIL/WP:OWN. This is also not a vote, the valid hatnote (per related) and lack of primary topic indicate there's use in including some sort of link(s) to the PC platform in the dab. Yes I can see it both ways and if there was a primary topic for PC, then the broad concept may be enough to cover it without inclusion (although even that is debateable). Without a PT, I consider it useful. We had that before, so I'm waiting for the case to be made per guideline to justify the removal of the entry/entries. Without the case being made here, restoring to that previous version is the default. Widefox; talk 12:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion: I just finished studying above. IMHO, including IBM PC and IBM PC compatible is redundant, because personal computer explains enough about their influence on PC, so the reader won't miss anything. Also including them is a violation of WP:NPOV because it puts undue emphasis on IBM, whose period of influence – no matter how critical – was limited. Many others played great roles in PC history; but disambiguation pages are not history or timeline pages.

The WP:PTM (Codename Lisa) and WP:DABMENTION (Widefox) discussion aren't entirely without merits here but aren't sufficient on their own. WP:RECENTISM and the hatnote on top of personal computer articles are entirely without merit. The hatnote uses weasel words and actually sends the reader away from the article in search of what is already in the article. Fleet Command (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The hatnote is allowed - see WP:RELATED (as discussed here). The IBM PC is known as "PC" in the article ("IBM Personal Computer") - note it is a title case/proper noun as a product name not "Personal computer", so a valid entry (see WP:DIFFCAPS why this is important for disambiguation). NPOV applies to articles, dabs aren't articles. WP:RECENTISM would be why we don't remove the highly notable PC hardware platform from this dab. Above you also claim that "Now, let's say nobody uses "PC" to mean Mac and Linux. (I think that's the case by the way...". which is incorrect WP:OR, a conflation of several meanings of PC (hardware platform and Windows), and the truth and sources used say it's more complicated than that e.g. Macs run on PC hardware. Others do not agree that linux computers are not called PCs. It is a PC running linux. Anyhow, that's somewhat outside the scope of this dab. Widefox; talk 12:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

MOSDAB

(Moved from User talk:Codename_Lisa so others may comment) Hi Codename Lisa, to save discussing this general disabiguation style point on the dab talk page, piping like this [4] is never done per WP:MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 23:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Widefox.

You are wrong. WP:DABPIPING says it is allowed. It even gives example number 2 for it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That appears to be either a conflation of the two entry types or a misunderstanding about the basics of MOSDAB, specifically either:

1. don't use "A" "The" etc - links at the front are preferred per WP:MOSDAB (if the article name is the ambiguous term) - I'm guessing this isn't what you mean, so...

2. The style is meant to be for a MOS:DABMENTION in which the ambiguous term is incorrectly not shown unlinked at the start (per example 1 & 2), correct formatting shows how perverse it would be... something like:

• Personal computer, a personal computer running Microsoft Windows

...where the article name is not obscured

I'd consider that entry redundant and remove it (as I've explained on the talk page) as we already link that article Widefox; talk 01:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: Do you even read what I write? Anyway, here is a snippet from DABPIPING:

When a disambiguation page is linking to a specific section of an article, rather than an entire article, piping may be used for linking to that section via anchor points or section linking. This technique is used commonly for piping to the track listing section of an album; a further example, from E (disambiguation), is that the piped ESRB ([[ESRB#Ratings|ESRB]]) is preferred to simply linking to the top of the target page ESRB. When piping is used on a disambiguation page to link to an article section (compare with § Items appearing within other articles), the link should be in the description, and should avoid surprising the reader. The text of the link should not be the title of a different article. For example: Ten may refer to: (correct) Ten or Tenshinhan, a character in Dragon Ball media Markup: Ten or Tenshinhan, a [[List of Dragon Ball characters#Tenshinhan|character in Dragon Ball media]] (incorrect) Ten or Tenshinhan, a character in Dragon Ball media Markup: Ten or Tenshinhan, a character in [[List of Dragon Ball characters#Tenshinhan|Dragon Ball]] media

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you reasoned why you consider your edit fits that example then we may progress. In the example "Ten", the entry starts with the ambiguous term. Your edit does not. My rewrite of your edit does. I regret taking this point out of the dab page. Do you mind if we move it back to the dab talk? I will put a note in at the dab project so that others can comment, and that's best handled there. Regards Widefox; talk 09:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The offending edit is removed already. So, please stop beating the dead horse. Fleet Command (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

We're discussing right? So, the discussion is open, and CL has made this edit since mine. As it is not valid, and a valid version is not helpful or sensible, yes we may or may not discount it, even though CL still considers it valid. This seemed to be a version liked in the edit dispute above, and my point is that the previous cascade before that mess is preferable, and recent versions like this not. Others from the dab project may or may not agree with me, we'll see. Widefox; talk 11:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Incoming links

Currently we have no primary topic, or link to the platform known as a PC. How does this help readers, or writers e.g. when they have to follow or fix incoming links to the dab page? For example New Nintendo 3DS ? Widefox; talk 13:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with disambiguating to personal computer? Fleet Command (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Acronyms

@Mutt Lunker: Hi! I'm not sure if there were any previous discussions on whether something should be widespread enough to be listed on a disambiguation page, but I saw the usage of "P.C." meaning postal code in a 1970s book that seems to have been published in Canada, as well as this study of the health of Germany I feel that if somebody has decided that "this is how you abbreviate 'postal code'" it's widespread enough to be listed on a disambiguation page. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That somebody once coined it or, with your Chinese tech company instance, there are three disparate primary sources choosing to use this abbreviation, is maybe a lead to find something more substantial but not enough to state that it has significant use, as putting it on a dab page would. If you can find a reference source which lists this as a notably-used acronym that would nail it. I'll note that two of the sources are from non English-speaking countries and the Canadian one seems relatively obscure, possibly self-published. Possibly it's prominent use in a more significant work might suffice but that may also be regarded as OR, I don't know. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I just tried 6 online dictionaries (5 British, one american, FWIW), all of which listed definitions for PC but none of which included "postal code". Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: From this Google search I see the OAG Travel Planner lists "PC Postal Code" so in the airline industry PC can mean postal code. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, that only seeks to reinforce how weak the case is if a similarly obscure primary source usage is all that turns up. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: EDIT: I decided to see if Wikipedia:Disambiguation had guidance and it stated: "In particular, do not include people and other things simply because of their initials, unless those initials have been widely used. John Fitzgerald Kennedy is widely known as JFK and this is discussed in the article, so the initials are appropriately disambiguated; however, Marilyn Monroe was never commonly known as "MM", nor was A. A. Milne known as either "AA" or "AAM". I'm not sure if acronyms count as initials... WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hesitate s 164.138.130.165 (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Pc

Pc 2A02:587:497D:8C00:B808:495E:FEF4:A8E2 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)