Talk:Blue screen of death/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Misinterpreted sources

Codename Lisa has reverted my trimming of the subsection on news outlets misattributing the screen to Steve Ballmer, while accusing me of "censorship". They later reverted almost all my edits to the article. Out of curiosity, I decided to check out who added this section in the first place; it turns out it was the same user. I can imagine why they would feel so personally about it, but there is no need for such strong language as "censorship"; please assume good faith. It is simply a matter of giving the issue its due weight. After all, this is an article about an error screen, not about journalists misinterpreting sources they cite. And yet, out of 24 references currently in the article, half are dedicated to covering this little controversy. While I may agree the incident does seem to deserve some kind of mention, this looks like a sign of this article being disproportionately focused on it. It is hardly "censorship" to address that: WP:NOTCENSORED does not say "no content can ever be removed from Wikipedia".

In reverting my edits, Codename Lisa reinstated a section called "Similar screens" with comparisons to other systems. Now, I think this is not a very good place for such information: there is a navbox of similar screens at the bottom, and there is even a whole article Fatal system error which could cover this topic. Moreover, that section tended to attract all sorts of unsourced trivia. It also contained this sentence:

Windows 98 and early builds of Windows Vista displayed the red screen from a boot loader error raised by ACPI.

References

The sources cited do not support the claim made. The Microsoft page is a dead link; an archived version talks about Windows 98, but it is not clear that it is the same kind of error as the one this article talks about. The other two news articles report on a blog post by Michael Kaplan about Longhorn's boot loader (though neither news article mentions boot loaders itself). So we have something about a red ACPI error screen in Windows 98, and a red boot loader error screen in Windows Vista, and the two have nothing to do with each other. Even without examining the sources, this claim should have been suspicious: boot loaders do not generally concern themselves with ACPI, and Windows 98 is a completely separate codebase from Windows Vista.

I think it serves this project no good if it indulges in the very same kind of incompetence of which it is accusing others (and on the very same page no less). If nothing else, it makes the between-the-lines sniggering to the effect of "ha ha ha, you stupid journalists got it wrong" rather hypocritical.

Unless someone else objects, I am going to reinstate my edits. I hope I shall not be accused of "censorship" this time. —Keφr 20:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hello.

I'll get straight to the point:

1. "please assume good faith": Censorship is always done in good faith. When it is done in bad faith, it called "vandalism"!
2. "I can imagine why they would feel so personally about it": Actually, I can argue that it is you who feel personally about it, because you accompanied your edit with an unprovoked personal attack ("cut down silly passive-aggressive gloating over a fairly minor press incident") and have linked the "feel so personally" part to WP:OWN. I on the other hand, spent three revisions and a lot of times so that my revert is a partial revert.
3. "It is simply a matter of giving the issue its due weight.: Correct. Only I believe it is I who gave it the due weight and you denied it the due weight. When 11 source, to which many of us Wikipedians swear, commit such a mistake, the amount of coverage that I gave it, is the proper amount. The thing that is absent from your version, however, is the neutral point of view. You did not represent fairly and proportionately the point of view of both sources. You simply censored the point of viewed of those eleven source, like it does not matter.
4. "The sources cited do not support the claim made. [Blah blah]": There is enough truth in the given sources that the correct course of action would be rewording, not deletion. I have done so: Revision 785999653.

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Kephir: What you did to the article is this. (And CL didn't revert it all; she kept this.) You have done a lot of bad things in it:

• Your alleged attempt to adjust the due weight of the "Incorrect attribution" section is this:

  The error message's format is similar to that of non-fatal popup messages produced by the virtual machine manager of Windows 3.x. This visual resemblance has caused several media outlets to misreport a blog post by Raymond Chen as saying that the Blue Screen of Death message was written by Steve Ballmer; what the post had actually attributed to Ballmer was a different kind of blue-screen message.

  "This visual resemblance has caused" is original research; you can't know that. "several media outlets" is weasel word and unreferenced. More importantly, you post doesn't rule out that Steve Ballmer didn't do it.
• You deleted everything in "Similar screens" section without explanation. (Content removal without citing a policy in support is vandalism.) You disguised it as "move info on other colours elsewhere".
• You have removed two links from the "See also" section without explanation.
• You have added three links to the "See also" section that, according to WP:SEEALSO, mustn't be there. It is not a "See again" section.

"Unless someone else objects, I am going to reinstate my edits. I hope I shall not be accused of "censorship" this time." Oh, I assure you, you will not be accused of censorship of if you do that. You will be accused of edit warring and being a dick. You are threatening to edit war already. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

NotMyFault.exe

This program lets you manually get BSoDs to lear what they mean and to help you learn how to diagnose problems with your computer or bluescreen troublesome computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.13.248 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 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: pages moved to standard capitalisation per TITLETM. Consensus against moving to proposed titles in RM request. Clear arguments here that the current articles meet common name criteria, however I see adequate consensus to normalise these titles. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

---

• Blue Screen of Death → Blue screen error
• Black Screen of Death → Black screen error

– Microsoft calls them "blue screen errors" and "black screen errors", in sentence case. The word "error" would be clearer to casual readers, while "of death" is less helpful to readers unfamiliar (or less familiar) with the topic. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Blue screen of death" gets 1.7 million Google search results, "blue screen error" only gets 400,000. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Common name is the Blue Screen of Death. O.N.R. ^(talk) 18:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Current title is the clear WP:COMMONNAME, and much more recognizable to readers familiar with the topic. (There may be a decent case for moving to title case though. RS usage is pretty divided on capitalization.) Colin M (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• The capitalization probably shouldn't be title case. I support moving to Blue screen of death (and "Black screen of death"). Rreagan007 (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Why move to non-title case? Most of the sources in this article write it with the capitalized letters. --Sek-2 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Because it's not the title of a work like a book or movie. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

From WP:CAPITALIZATION: "occasional exceptions may apply". Considering that Blue Screen of Death with the initial caps is the most common version of the name, it seems to me that this could be considered an exception. --Sek-2 (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason for an exception in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

From what I understand, capitalization can fall under WP:COMMONNAME, no? --Sek-2 (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Even though it's, AFAIK, not a trademark, I think the spirit of WP:TITLETM applies in this case. i.e. we use standard capitalization unless the non-standard one is "demonstrably the most common usage". From my reading, sources are split pretty evenly on capitalization of this term, to the point where I don't think one format is the clear commonname. Therefore, I think the title case version is more appropriate. Colin M (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as above, but move to lower case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extensive information on all screens of death at [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.90.59 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"Stop code" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stop code. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 11:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"Blue Screen of Death" vs. "blue screen of death" - BSOD vs. BSoD?

1) After the title change, this article is now inconsistent.

2) Should the abbreviation now be changed to BSOD (BSoD)? As there aren't any capitalisation differences of the words.

--Mortense (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

BSOD text change in Version 2004

An IP recently made an edit to the article, changing an image caption which shows a BSOD from Win10 versions 1607-1909, to make it say 1607-2004. The BSOD text was changed slightly in version 2004 from "Your PC ran into a problem..." to "Your device ran into a problem...".

My question is: should we make the caption say simply "versions 1607-present" regardless of the text change or should we still say it's from version 1607-1909, which is more factually correct? --SlitherioFan2016 (^Talk/_Contribs) 09:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy of this subject on Windows 1.x and 2.x

On Windows 1.x and 2.x, if a serious error occur, the shell would hang the entire system, goes into Black screen of death (the infamous "blinking cursor" on black screen) and hangs, or just drops back out to DOS. BSoD does not exist until Windows 3.1, and even then it wasn't an error screen, but rather a Ctrl-Alt-Del warning message that preceded the task manager. (If there's an app crashing, pressing those keys will ask you if you want to terminate that app)

This rather freaky image is just a "corrupted" logo seen when starting Windows. It's caused by incompatibility with later version of MS-DOS, and there are several examples of this error exists. (note the "Incorrect DOS version" error message) NotCory (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fix the 'not to be confused with' text thing

the not to be confused with text thingy just says [[:Blue_Screen_of_Death]] and that redirects to the stop code/windows nt section of the bsod article. could someone fix that? Synt4x 3rr0r at Line 420 (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"PAGE FAULT IN NONPAGED AREA" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect PAGE FAULT IN NONPAGED AREA. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 26#PAGE FAULT IN NONPAGED AREA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Blue screen vs. Blue screen of death

I don’t think Wikipedia should call it Blue screen "of death” because not all Windows computers which are showing this message are “dying” due to this “BSoD” and also, Wikipedia has a policy: To name features, error names etc. by what the manufacturer calls it. Microsoft calls it a “blue screen error’ on its support website. SidChat2048 (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The BSOD version of its name is the more common one so it makes sense to keep the title of the article this way. The body of the article and the intro make it clear that the blue screen can have various causes and consequences, there's not an urgent need to put the distinction in the title. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy: To name features, error names etc. by what the manufacturer calls it.

Never heard of it. Feel free to insert a link to the policy page. Waysidesc (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

References

The article already says it

@Wizzardkitty This wasn't necessary:[2] The article is already saying it. Waysidesc (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Bad image name

One of the anonymous contributors deleted one of the article's pictures because of the picture's misleading name.[3] But I've already corrected the picture's caption. "BSoD in Windows 1.0" is misleading. But its caption is not: 'The "Incorrect Dos Version" screen on Windows 1.0 featuring random characters.'

The whole thing is a bit hard to believe, though. The anonymous editor must have seen the image and its caption before seeing its name. Waysidesc (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The article explains: "if Windows found a newer DOS version than it expected, it would generate a blue screen with white text saying "Incorrect DOS version" followed by a list of loaded kernel modules and their respective memory addresses, before starting normally."

In the image, I don't see white text saying "Incorrect DOS version" followed by a list of loaded kernel modules and their respective memory addresses. Therefore, it's not the "Incorrect Dos Version" screen either. --5.29.25.224 (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Your quotation isn't an explanation of the image content. I think it was never meant to be either. The image content is explained in its caption: 'The "Incorrect Dos Version" screen on Windows 1.0 featuring random characters.' Waysidesc (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Does any WP:RS assert that the screen featuring random characters has any relation to incorrect DOS version? Or is it your own creative interpretation? --5.29.25.224 (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Here are two videos: [4] and [5]

Waysidesc (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Neither of which shows a non-standard display mode with 12½ lines of text, as in File:BSoD_in_Windows_1.0.png. Evidently, the latter was produced in different circumstances. --5.29.25.224 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure it does. It's called, freedom, baby! 😊 Waysidesc (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The image also has a source on its summary page: [6]

Waysidesc (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It does, but the source has no mention of incorrect DOS version either. --5.29.25.224 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

But the videos do. The second one installs Windows on an incorrect DOS version. Waysidesc (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The text you quoted, however, is unreferenced. Waysidesc (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

So I've deleted the unreferenced part, and added a reference for the remaining part. --5.29.25.224 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2021

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. WP:SNOW closure. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 16:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Blue screen of death → Stop error – Windows 11 has changed the blue screen to black, making the title no longer accurate for all Windows builds. This is a more catch-all term that does not rely on color. Aasim (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME would seem to be the overriding concern. Windows 11 adoption is in its infancy, while 10 still dominates ... so I think we're a long way away from the preponderance of sources switching to call this something else. -- Netoholic @ 02:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The first sentence of the article says a BSoD is officially known as a stop error or blue screen error, with a reference that is still current: there's no doubt in my mind that "Blue Screen of Death" is the common name, but "blue" is also in the official name. There's a separate Microsoft Support page for Troubleshoot black screen or blank screen errors.

Blue screen error redirects to here, so it might make sense to move it over that per WP:NPOVNAME #2 Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious, but I'd argue that "Stop error" is way too imprecise as a title for this article. That phrase does not appear on the BSoD in Windows 10 (or, I believe, earlier editions), so I doubt the majority of Windows users are familiar with the term.

We have Black screen of death for Windows versions where the error is not displayed on a blue background (including Windows 11). That article and links to this in a hatnote and the body text. If anything, "stop error" should be a WP:NOPRIMARY disambiguation page. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. SHB2000 (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per commonname and discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME—blindlynx (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move per all above. Although the screen's no longer blue in Windows 11, "blue screen of death" is still the common name. O.N.R. ^(talk) 20:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Old Naval Rooftops, I understand your argument as an analogy to the following: boards for writing on with chalk (known in the United States as chalkboards) were always black in early history; this is where the name "blackboard" (which they are called in the United Kingdom) came from. In later history they became green, but the term "blackboard" remained standard. Just as we don't correct blackboard to greenboard, we don't correct blue screen of death to black screen of death. Any corrections to this analogy?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, "Blue Screen Of Death" is the common name, it has almost become a term synonymous with computer crashes. JIP | Talk 22:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose; 27 years of history has turned this title into both an icon and a metonymy. Windows 11, a sad excuse for a paint job on Windows, is not going to change that. Waysidesc (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear common name established over many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Top image

Moved from User talk:Waysidesc

Thanks for your edits to Blue screen of death.

Yes I did I saw it was a snowball close, but the important thing here is accuracy and timeliness. Windows 11 users no longer get a blue screen but a black screen as their blue screen of death. Still Microsoft refers to them as blue screens in documentation and in support pages. Aasim (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, black screen refers to a completely different error screen that has nothing to do with KeBugCheck or stop errors. Therefore having the Windows 11 stop error screen on Black Screen of Death is inaccurate. Aasim (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim Hello. 😊

Look, I think you should pay a little more attention to the purpose of the article. Let me give you an example: Japan's shogun is no longer Tokugawa Ieyasu but nobody is deleting the Tokugawa Ieyasu's article just to be "timely" as you put it. The article is titled Blue Screen of Death because it is focusing on the era when this screen was significant. Windows 11 itself is yet to be known.

By the way, the right place for discussing the article contents is the article discussion page. Here, nobody sees what we're talking about, so they can't chip in. Want me to move this discussion there? Waysidesc (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure let's go ahead and have this discussion over a nice cup of tea ☕. I just tend to leave friendly messages explaining my stance to other people 😊 Aasim (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Waysidesc (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Continuing discussion from User_talk:Waysidesc:

One major change to Windows 11 is the blue screen/stop error screen. Instead, the white text is displayed on a black background except the QR code. I believe the Windows 11 image should be the lead image and the Windows 10 image should be moved down. I know there was a snowball close opposed to moving blue screen of death to something more generic, but having the Windows 10 blue screen is a bit out of date. Typically we replace the blue screen image almost right away (from what I have seen), so why not replace the Windows 10 blue screen with the Windows 11 blue screen for the lead image?

Microsoft still refers to them as blue screens, even if they are black, and thus I also believe the Windows 11 blue screen image does not belong on Black screen of death. Aasim (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

So, to recap: I think the top image in this article (which shows up in previews and the Wikipedia mobile app) must be a blue image. Our friendly fellow editor Awesome Aasim thinks it should be from the latest version of Windows, even if it is black.

Thoughts, community? Waysidesc (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim Hi. Looks like nobody is pitching in. It's just you and me, and we have to resolve our dispute by ourselves. The fastest way to resolve it is ... I forfeit. (It means do whatever you like.) Waysidesc (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, Microsoft, it's Blue Again

They reverted back the black screen into blue again, at least the latest in the latest unstable build ([7]). Seems that the move proposal became retroactively moot. Of course, it shouldn't be edited back until it is released formally, if ever. - 2001:4453:532:4A00:918:F50:50D1:C15C (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)