Talk:PC LOAD LETTER

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 23, 2005	Articles for deletion	No consensus
June 21, 2006	Articles for deletion	Kept

Change name to PC LOAD LETTER

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 moved to PC LOAD LETTER. -- Aervanath (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be at PC LOAD LETTER, with other capitalizations redirecting there. EAE (Holla!) 00:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Dmarquard (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PC Load Letter → PC LOAD LETTER — Change in capitalization only. Originally proposed over a year ago with no objection and two agreements (including me here), also the article itself says "The error is always displayed fully capitalized" — Vicarious (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. The current title complies with WP:CAPS. --DAJF (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that when this error message appears, it is always in all uppercase. It is not a name of anything. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm cherry picking the part of the policy that suits me, but what seems most relevant to me is "would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence", which is the case here. Vicarious (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would always occur capitalized, except on the printer, which capitalizes not based on any special property of the phrase, but because printer displays capitalize everything. A quick glance at google indicates the phrase, when used as a meme, is just as likely to be spelled "PC Load Letter" or "PC load letter". Baileypalblue (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following on my previous comment, if "PC Load Letter" is not a proper name, then perhaps the article should be moved to PC load letter? Baileypalblue (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Proposed name would violated MOS:TM (or CAPS). I agree with Bailey that maybe it should be "PC load letter". TJ Spyke 02:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSTM is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), But 'PC LOAD LETTER' is not a trade name or any other sort of name, but an error message. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

BeejiveIM

The Beejive info was removed because it lacked a reference. (At least that was the stated reason) So, I reverted it and simply added a reference. I have a loose association with Beejive, but I think adding a requested reference seems reasonable. Aepryus (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone anonymously removed the paragraph on May 20, 2009, with the note "Advertisement for the iPhone app removed". No one associated with Beejive wrote/added that paragraph originally or modified it in anyway. To my knowledge no one has ever created a Beejive article in Wikipedia, what-so-ever. The paragraph was unceremoniously removed a few weeks ago claiming it was done so because it lacked references, without bothering to add a reference request and seemingly without making any effort to look for any references, since a google search of (beejive "PC LOAD LETTER") returns ~3000 results including on the first page a link to an article from the washington post. I reverted the deletion and added the reference to the washington post and then explicitly said so above. I am not arguing that the paragraph should be included in this article. But, if the reason it is not included in the article is because it lacked references, then I can provide a strong one from the washington post ([[1]]). However, I strenuously reject the implication and the insult of the latest deletion note and ask anonymous to justify his assertion. Aepryus (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me, but it seems like it was the right call. I note that the article mentioned above isn't a Washington Post article, it's just second-sourced copy from TechCrunch, which while generally well-informed is nonetheless a very personal and often speculative blog. Not to mention that the article, dated only two months ago, says "A quick Google search for "Beejive" and "PC Load letter" turns up only a few dozen results, a number of which are people complaining that they've been banned unfairly", although as you point out, there are now over 3,000. RossPatterson (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I offer no opinion, as to whether the paragraph should be included or not. If the only reason for not including it, is the lack of references as to whether the behavior is true or not, then I think the washington post and/or tech crunch article is more than sufficient. My more serious concern was the accusation that this paragraph's existence was the doing of Beejive marketing; I and Beejive had nothing to do with it what-so-ever; with the exception of me adding the "requested" reference. I have no idea why someone cares so much about removing this paragraph; as I implied in my original post here, I strongly suspected that the reference argument was red herring; just as the "advertising" argument is probably now.Aepryus (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: There is no consensus to move the article ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PC LOAD LETTER → PC load letter — I don't see a clear consensus for the move (discussed in 2009 above) but it was moved anyway, in a manner that appears contrary to WP:TITLE, which suggests we use normal sentence case except for proper nouns. Powers ^T 17:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title is in uppercase because the message always or usually displayed in uppercase. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand that reasoning, but it seems reasonably countered by the fact that the message usually appears on uppercase-only displays. We, as an encyclopedia and not a printer display, do not have that limitation. Powers ^T 17:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - PC load letter is WP:POV, the correct spelling should be Pc load letter. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it POV? "PC" is pronounced "pee see", and so it's okay to spell it with capitals. Powers ^T 00:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Make it like it appears on the printer and leave it the way it is and that is the way it should be titled but saying it is POV is not true and I don't understand that opinion at all. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

ME FEED MONARCH

Not sure if this is worth adding, but a LaserJet asking for the envelope size "Monarch" in the Manual Envelope feeder (quite common. actually) will say "ME FEED MONARCH"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.53.121.51 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. On the off chance you or anyone else is still around, can you provide a photo? I suspect this has become more rare lately and will soon be obsolete as more and more machines move to touchscreen displays with graphical images instead of a dot matrix. For what it's worth, I've seen this type of message on large freestanding copy machines as well, but that job was quite a long time ago. —Soap— 20:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soap My machine isn't nearly in as good shape as the one at the top of the article, but it still can produce the error message: File:ME_FEED_MONARCH.jpg. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: Thank you, I think that would be a great addition to the article. I havent kept up with Wikipedia lately but Im sure other people would appreciate seeing the variant form of the message. —Soap— 00:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on PC LOAD LETTER. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]