Talk:Parallel Element Processing Ensemble

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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)[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: page moved. Jeh (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support. As per Dicklyon's rationale. Nageh (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and suggest quick closure by an admin. This was my fault. $Tony (talk)$ 11:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[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.