Talk:PC World

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 articles
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 articles
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.

Bulgaria Added

I've added Bulgaria as a country where the magazine is published as PC World. http://www.pcworld.bg/ , official site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.233.196.178 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal (PC Welt (magazine))

Beyond the different name, is PC Welt any more significantly different from the U.S. edition than (e.g.) the Brazilian edition of PC World, which is also published in a foreign language? If not, I think it should be merged. PC Advisor- the British edition- doesn't have (or warrant) a separate article either.

Fourohfour 14:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Edge is all kept in one article for the different versions, even when in some cases they have nothing in common but name, almost. Everything that there is for an English reader to know about PC Welt magazine is surely no different to this. Of course, for the German Wikipedia, maybe things might be different. --Dreaded Walrus 04:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro sounds like an advertisement

The intro to this article is too long, contains too much fluff, and sounds like an advertisement. In fact, everything after the first sentence is advertising fluff that sounds like it was written by the editors of PC World. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.158.46.202 (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I concur. I think it sounds like an advertisement pretty much the whole way through and since no one has bothered to disagree, I'm going to put an advertisement tag. Fatla00 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early History

PC World was founded by people who left PC magazine when it was bought out by Ziff-Davis. That included David Bunnell, one of the founders of PC magazine.

The PC World's version of the story can be found here: http:[http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2103p019id108704.htm

This is pretty much the way industry gossip had it at the time, with the exception that part of the story (which has appeared in print in mags like Infoworld)was supposedly that Bunnell and a few of the others thought they were going to get a chunk of the profits when the magazine sold. They didn't, so they walked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.150.224 (talk) 20:44, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Logo

Someone needs to upload the new logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.155.105.62 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PC World logo.png

Image:PC World logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (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. 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)[reply]

PCWorld (magazine) → PCWorld 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 ([1] and [2] vs. [3]. 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: [4]. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would equally support PC World as primary topic.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trademark "PCWorld"

I have reviewed the prior move discussion and the WP:MOSTM and feel that the intention is to use official trademarks in preference to other forms, for example eBay, iPhone, InfoWorld, Computerworld, Macworld, etc. (no space between trademarked words/syllables). I therefore propose that this page is moved to PCWorld and that PC World be made into a redirect to PCWorld (reverse the redirect).
Enquire (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this page has been moved (at least) twice now:

"PC World (magazine)" to "PCWorld (magazine)" on 2012-03-08
"PCWorld (magazine)" to "PC World" on 2012-10-07

Hopefully we can reach consensus on the most appropriate permanent home for this article.
Enquire (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure there shouldn't be a space. The move request immediately above here has sources that clearly label the magazine as 'PC World' (with space); also looking carefully at the stylisation and the logo, you can see that the kerning is a bit more exaggerated than if the 'C' and 'W' were meant to be together, so my inclination would be to leave the article where it is. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? Everywhere I look on the PCWorld website, it is "PCWorld" (no space). See, in particular, their "about us" page on brand identity for "PCWorld" here:

www.idgcsmb.com/brands/pcworld

There is no kerning there. Surely we should follow the style that they themselves define?

Enquire (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permission fees required for non-free covers

I went to the official website and contacted the company that owns PC World. I was told that using a front cover of any issue, especially the first issue, would require a licensing fee. I declined the fee offer, so I bet using the cover arts without paying a licensing fee would not be fair use. If it's fair use, I think the use that requires a licensing fee would fail WP:NFCC#2. Someone would disagree, but I just would like to post this message intended for those wanting to add a front cover. George Ho (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

PC World → PCWorld – 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oppose based on current argument which isn't based on secondary sources. Widefox; talk 11:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]