Talk:Binary prefix/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Binary prefix. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Counterproposal

For writing, discourage use of SI prefixes in either sense (binary or decimal), and instead use, respectively, KiB/MiB/GiB/... (IEC) or KdB/MdB/GdB/... (new in this proposal, and modelled on IEC). For speaking, or writing in full, abandon the (to say it politely) "problematic" IEC pronunciation proposal, instead use SI pronunciation for both, but always (no exceptions!) provide an indication about which meaning applies by either saying, e.g., "binary megabyte" or "decimal megabyte", or, when useful for efficiency and making certain that no confusion would result, explicitly setting up a context ("all quantities that follow are ..."). The reasoning behind this is that any attempt to reclaim SI prefixes for decimal use only seems futile (and the reader will never know for certain what MB means without a declaration of which convention applies), if desirable at all, and that IEC pronunciation is "problematic". [Duly noting that this is a more appropriate place to talk about this than the main article, but also questioning the encyclopedic neutrality of the main article(s).] -- RFST (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't use KiB or KdB. Intsead use the terms that are found in reliable sources relevant to an article and disambiguate stating the exact number of bytes using 10ⁿ or 2ⁿ notation if needed. Fnag aton 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I don't think it is the role of Wikipedia to invent a new notation. In any case the "dB" notation is not workable because of the confusion with the decibel. Where I agree completely with RFST is that the ambiguity in MB and GB is highly undesirable. There are articles that appear to use both meanings within the same paragraph, without even drawing the ambiguity to the reader's attention. Fnagaton's suggestion is a good interim measure if followed, but no long term solution. Personally I prefer to disambiguate using 50 MB (MiB) rather than 50 MB (1024³ B), but that is a matter of taste. In the long term let’s just hope the computer industry gets its act in order. Thunderbird2 (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" (or whoever is most active in it, see elsewhere) is already pushing "IEC", so an attempt to bring a bit of balance should not be lightly dismissed. There is no confusion with dB because, even if they could be relevant with the unit bel, multiple prefixes are not permitted (compare with kg), and in fact would remove any existing confusion with B for bel, but I consider this point quite irrelevant. As long as byte itself is not outlawed for use with SI prefixes because it is itself a number of bits (and not even a nice "decimal" multiple), and as long as address and data bus widths and their consequences continue to make "binary" multiples very visible (which would be forever), arguments mainly in the consumer realm should not dictate that binary multiples be relegated to ridiculousness without actually resolving the state of confusion that we are in. -- RFST (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept there is no real ambiguity with dB, for the reason you give (although that does not mean there can be no confusion). So let's consider your suggestion further. There is no doubt it would be great to have a concise notation to allow us to distinguish between the decimal and binary senses of MB. For that reason, and like I said from the beginning, I do like your idea. But doesn't it fall foul of Wikipedia's rules against self reference? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I used "confusion" too often, and in different ways. "Self-references are entirely acceptable on talk pages", but, at least as far as my little sample of web search engines is concerned (just leaving a trace for indexing: KiB MiB GiB TiB PiB EiB ZiB YiB KdB MdB GdB TdB PdB EdB ZdB YdB), this seems to be an original idea (which is hopefully not a bad thing), which does beg the question how it could or should be launched (and I very much doubt that consumer products would run with it): maybe someone might bite the bullet for their product to be referenced as an alternative? — RFST (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research

While possibly true, the "Files" section is complete original research. You can't claim the contents are easily verifiable or obvious facts either (see WP:FACTS), since the section makes claims about a situation over 20 years ago. Further, claims about "most operating systems today" also can't be taken as fact, since I doubt anyone can easily verify this statement for most operating systems around today. In short, the Files section needs to be backed up by reliable sources or removed. Andareed (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually WP:FACTS is entirely appropriate - the contents are easily verifiable. There is lots of documentation about 20 year old software but it is not necessary to find it since there are thousands of observers of the old software who can either attest to or rebut the facts. Furthermore, some of the 20 year old software still works on todays computers - I easily booted several MSDOSs last year to verify the presentation of file and device capacity. Finally, today "most" computers run Windows so the statement is correct. But it goes further and in the footnote lists other significant computers whose presentation of files the editor easily verified. So IMO, this is not original research but a compilation of easily verifiable facts and your flag should be removed. Tom94022 (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Andareed, thanks for the pointer: WP:FACTS is exactly what this is, as Tom94022 writes. Go to your friendly neighbour computer user ("someone with a reasonable knowledge"), and ask him to check his system (which doesn't take a minute). If you prefer, look at the manual pages for those systems (and try to understand them!), but a simple verification is far easier and pretty much equivalent to pointing at and perhaps citing from the manual page. Maybe you'll have to ask several neighbours, but that's equivalent to having to check multiple references. What might be upsetting you is the fact that I have spent the effort of carefully outlining the circumstances, so that if anything changes later on someone won't just think someone made a silly mistake, or so that anyone doubting the accuracy of the entry in 2020 will see that the information is almost 15 years old and needs to be reverified (possibly leading to updating the reference and maybe the entry itself). My mistake was to leave the list of primary sources in the article itself at first, for lack of experience with Wikipedia tags (at first I considered the discussion page, but there it would only get separated and lost), and presuming that someone else might apply any required editorial remedies, rather than just making an unsupported entry (lots of those in Wikipedia, not seldomly going unchallenged). (I cannot speak for later additions to the "Files" section, but the designation as "complete original research" cannot apply to the whole section because currently only the later addition refers to a now historic situation, while the original referred to only the most current versions of some very alive systems.) Oh, and obviously the list wasn't really in alphabetical order... — RFST (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no no no. WP:FACTS is (a) an essay, not policy (and thus can't just be pointed at to settle arguments), and (b) specifically for things which could be verified in a moment by a casual reader. "Asking one's friendly neighbour computer user" is definitely not something which falls under this. It's the epitome of original research. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the essay (yes, I knew it wasn't policy or even a guideline) because some people prescribe to this philosophy. My argument was that even if you go along with this essay, I doubt most people have friends/know someone that would know, f.e. how VMS formatted file sizes 20 years ago. Andareed (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm only defending my list of primary sources (for present-day systems), and am not entirely happy about the later modification, but I leave it to others to make any appropriate and unbiased changes. If you don't have such a neighbour to save you time for the present-day part of it, you can install and try the systems yourself (which is time-consuming but straightforward). But there will be plenty of knowledgeable people who will read this and be able to intervene if it is incorrect, so you don't have to worry. In the end, I just documented my entry the way I would want to see it documented if someone else had written it, in a way that addresses any reasonable doubts I might have, and then some. I believe the requirement of verifiability is amply met, especially in the "spirit of the law", if (maybe) not entirely in the letter. — RFST (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If we use this concept, we wouldn't need to reference anything. For example, why add references in the World War II article? We can just ask our neighbourhood war veteran what happened and confirm everything in that article. Andareed (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

With your friendly neighbour computer user, you just look over his shoulder and see for yourself that it is as described. It's not a matter of opinion or selective memory or limited visibility or whatever here, the neighbour is just an enabler of your own verification, saving you some time (you can do it all yourself if you prefer). As I wrote, this is equivalent to referencing the manual pages (assuming a bug-free implementation), except that it is easier to just check (manual pages can be difficult to understand, they do not exhaustively describe everything, and you'll maybe also have to install the system to have them anyway). — RFST (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Andareed, but, I believe if there is no documentation, it is better then nothing. Although, he says, "There is lots of documentation about 20 year old software", so why cant somebody look this up? 10max01 (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Note the screen shot on the right, also cited in Section 1.1 of the article. It establishes that PCDOS at least at 3.1 provided decimal digits without even commas. Similar pictures are in the MS DOS encyclopedia. There are similar screen shots posted about for Apple DOS. I haven't looked but I bet there are such for the other 20 year OS's. There are also text books and manuals floating about. I don't think it is necessary to do such a compilation of such available facts to make a factual statement. It should be sufficient that those of us editors who used such OSs can attest to the facts. If anyone can rebut such a statement then the editor would have to retract or re-edit, but absent proof to the contrary, well established and known facts should not need attribution Tom94022 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Going back to User:Andareed's war analogy, that's like saying that Churchill's meeting with Roosevelt and Stalin doesn't need referenced because there's a photo of them shaking hands. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thumperward is wrong about OR and improper in reverting the page! The four OSs cited by RFST are not original research! The operating systems as published by their manufacturers are the primary source and RFST is the observing secondary source. All he has to do is identify specifically the version of the OS he observed (e.g. which Windows at what release). Whether this is in the main body or footnote or in combination is a style choice; personally I prefer to keep the body as short a possible. I am posting a copy of this in Thumperwards talk page. I suggest after a short period, RFST can reformat per this suggestion and update the page as he sees fit. Tom94022 (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No. A primary source would be documentation of such facts by Microsoft, Apple etc.; a secondary source would be reference to such documentation. The observations of Wikipedians may never be taken to be sources in themselves. Please take the time to read WP:OR and its supporting materials. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I did take the time to read read WP:OR and its supporting materials and I read it again. I can find nothing in the references that precludes the executable code itself from being a published primary source. Anyone can observe the executing the code and become a secondary source as to what it presents. All RFST has to do is identify the executable he observed.Tom94022 (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom94022, this is the relevant section from WP:OR:

Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material....All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

I don't see why RFST can't simply find a valid secondary source for this - I don't believe that Thumperward and Andareed disbelieve RFST, they're just keen to see this done right. This flag once was red 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you contend that the published version of an OS is NOT a primary source? There are millions to hundreds of millions of copies floating around. Therefore the policy u cite does NOT appply Tom94022 (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom94022, there are millions of copies of "Pride and Prejudice" floating around, that doesn't mean I can interpret my copy and publish it on Wikipedia. I can only state that "Prof. Higgins has interpreted Pride and Prejudice to mean..." The published version of an OS is, in this context, the very definition of a primary source. Someone's *verifiable* comments on that OS are a secondary source - and completely valid here. Put another way - if you feel that the published version of an OS is *not* a primary source, what is it? A secondary source? A tertiary source? It's the original - primary - source. This flag once was red —Preceding comment was added at 03:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify that, because I notice you changed "is a primary source" to "is NOT a primary source": the published version of an OS *is* a primary source. *Someone's* interpretation of it is a secondary source. If this *interpretation*, i.e. the secondary source, is (a) verifable (i.e. you can provide a cite) and (b) is not by a Wikipedia editor then all's well. If, however, you can't cite the reference and/or the only reference is yourself, then, per WP:OR it's not OK. Hope this clarifies it. This flag once was red 03:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider an example where I claim a Mathematical statement is true by adding my own proof. Mathematically inclined users could verify my proof is correct, much like users could verify that the listing of ls/dir is correct. However, I think we can all agree that my proof, even though it may be correct and verifiable, is original research and should not be in Wikipedia. Andareed (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree and I proudly admit I had nothing to do with writing Windows. Therefore, I contend there is nothing in violation of WP in my observing and reporting its performance so long as I cite the specific version I observe. Tom94022 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your contention appears to be incorrect. WP:OR prohibits observation and reporting on a primary source:

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Tom94022, you stated earlier that you've read WP:OR - this is section 1.3, could you re-read it and explain why you feel that observing and reporting on a primary source is OK? This seems to me to be a very basic violation of NOR, and I feel I must be missing something if you continue to believe it's not. This flag once was red 03:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the screen shot above. IBM is the publisher of PC DOS v 3.10 and the diskette is the primary source. The original diskette has a copyright notice, indicating that IBM thought it was a published work. If an editor writes that PC DOS 3.1 reports file sizes in decimal digits with out commas or prefixes he/she is not interpreting, analyzing or synthesizing any claim and therefore NOT in violation of WP:OR. He/she could take a screen shot (as I did in that case) to prove that they are accurately reporting their observation but it is not here required any more than it would be for any other attributable statement. If the editor mis-report, then some other editor will point it out, but in no way is such reporting OR. Or if it is, then everything is OR cause everyone of us is an observer of what we cite or quote. Tom94022 (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd already seen the screenshot, it doesn't alter the facts here. You are interpreting your observation. You and I both know what the screenshot shows, and what it represents, but we both have some knowledge in this field. An uninformed third party without any knowledge of OSs would have to take it on trust that what you observed represents what you claim it to represent. If you were to, instead, cite a secondary source then the hypothetical third party could lookup that source and arrive at their own conclusion. Your claim that everything is OR because we are all observers of what we cite is off the mark: if it's cited it can be verified, if it's uncited it can't. This is the rationale behind WP:OR, and why I'm so keen to see claims cited correctly. This flag once was red 04:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, I am describing it no more so than if I describe a written paragraph from a learned treatise. Tom94022 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if people didn't keep destroying my content based on an invalid interpretation (!) of WP:OR, which specifically states that "descriptive claims" are allowed. My original entry was directly supported by the reference material (putting it a notch above most of the rest of the article, if I may say so myself); anyone who has objections against the present form of the section and/or its relation to the references should modify the section itself and/or add appropriate references, not remove the references and then claim that citations are needed. — RFST (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

RFST, since multiple editors are reverting your changes it looks like you are trying to make changes that do not have consensus. I advise that you take a break and edit something else. Fnag aton 11:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

RFST, I referenced this when I reverted your most recent addition but I guess you didn't see it:

       * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
       * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

I hope this clarifies why your "descriptive claims" were reverted. Surely the easiest thing to do would simply be to provide a verifiable reference to support your additions? As I stated on your talk page, I have no objection to this being added - indeed, I think it would be a useful addition to this article - provided it's correctly cited. This flag once was red 12:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing but description in RFSTs footnote and everything is readily verifiable, so I reverted to the original. I then added specific citations to Windows versions to make it even easier to verify. Hopefully a MAC person can to the same for OS X. Red Flag, please be more explicit in defining what you find to be "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" about the footnote, they appear to be purely descriptive to me and easily verifiable by person educated in the specific operating system. Note that RFST apparently could not verify Windows but I could. The most I think is fair is that u put a fact citation on the MAC OS X. And since multiple editors are in disagreement, I suggest the policy is to leave the citation until consensus can be reached. Tom94022 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom94022, as far as I can see the consensus is largely for leaving the edit out until it can be cited - 2 editors want it in, 5 editors have reverted it as OR.

One of us can't count. I count 3 editors (me, RFST and 10max01) in favor of retaining and 2 or 3 in favor or reverting. NOT A CONSENSUS Tom94022 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

From the recent revision history:

User:Fnagaton - revert: "I agree that it violates WP:OR"
User:This flag once was red - revert: "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowl"
User:Wgungfu - revert: "No WP:OR allowed"
User:Thumperward - revert: "again, using original research as a reference isn't allowed. it can't be that difficult to dig up a reliable source for this data"
User:Andareed - revert: "You can't claim original research as a reference - see talk page"
User:Tom94022 - add: "Undid revision 195184890 by Fnagaton (talk)NOT OR, added Solaris cite"
User:RFST - add: " it is WP:OR which states that "descriptive claims" are allowed"

I can't see any edits by 10max01, but even allowing for an "add" vote from 10max01 that's still strong opposition to un-referenced edits - 5 editors (hardly the "2 or 3" you claim) vs. 3. This flag once was red 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit: OK, I found 10max01's comment on this talk page, not on the article page:

I agree with Andareed, but, I believe if there is no documentation, it is better then nothing. Although, he says, "There is lots of documentation about 20 year old software", so why cant somebody look this up?

I'm not convinced that 10max01 is either for or against - but I'd welcome clarification from 10max01. This flag once was red 23:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You note that RFST could not verify the claim re: Windows, but that you could. Note from WP:OR that:

only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge

If RFST was unable to verify the claim with respect to Windows, how can it be verified by a layperson without specialist knowledge? If you or RFST simply cited the claim - i.e. by providing a reference to a verifiable secondary source - this whole issue could be easily resolved.

The criteria is not a laypersons knowledge but that of an educated person. Perhaps RFST is a UNIX person who has no access to Windows or maybe he was just lazy. Regardless, those he couldn't cite are worthy of a fact citation and not oblivion as OR. Tom94022 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The criteria is:

...by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge...

The reason for the removals is because RFST hasn't provided any references, despite repeated requests to do so. And as both you and RFST have demonstrated, it's trivial to replace the unreferenced claims - far from the "oblivion" you suggest. This flag once was red 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the reference you cited for Windows was:

Microsoft Windows 2000 version 5.00.2195 Service Pack 2 and XP version 2002 Service Pack 2 as displayed in Windows Explorer and elsewhere

This is an interpretation, by an editor, of a primary source. This fails WP:OR. What would satisfy WP:OR is something like "Joe Bloggs, writing in Windows World, notes that Windows Explorer shows file sizes in 2^8 multiples".

Either Windows does or does not display file sizes in 2⁸ multiples. If it does so, then to say so is descriptive and what Joe Bloggs has to say may or may not be correct. What would you have us do if Joe Bloggs said those versions of Windows expressed file sizes in decimal, copy his misteak :-)? Isn't it is far better to refer to the primary source than to Joe Bloggs! Tom94022 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's far better to cite verifiable secondary sources, as you now appear to starting to do. This flag once was red 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I continue to fail to understand why one or both of you can't simply provide references for the claims made in this section - surely it can't be that hard to find a verifiable secondary source that supports these claims? Would a possible solution be to ask that a neutral, uninvolved editor arbitrate? This flag once was red 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is so easy to do so then why don't you do it. The reason I think it isn't easy is because it is so obvious from the primary sources that no one bothers to say so. The one exception maybe the Unix cited by RFST which should have such information in the reference manual for the various command modifiers. The other place it might be stated is in the trial records of the various litigations but those are generally not readily available. Tom94022 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, because it's not me trying to add unreferenced content? The onus falls on you to provide to cite your sources, not me. This flag once was red 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Following up on the above I added a cite to the Sun's Solaris command reference which confirms RSFTs description and added a facts needed citation to the MAC. In a few minutes I will find a citation for GNU. IMHO, NEITHER CITE WAS NECESSARY I hope this will stop this nonsense reversions Tom94022 (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This still looks like primary source - it's a man page. Can't you find a reference to someone interpreting this or commenting on it? This flag once was red 23:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is madness. Goodbye. — RFST (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion of this specific topic at No original research/noticeboard Tom94022 (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I appologize for never coming back. I wasnt looking to vote either way, as I believe many of you would have been better to advise this situations, and my point was adressed. I did not save this page, as I rarely come on wikipedia anymore, therefore wouldnt have been able to participate. I was against the original research, and what I was stating was IF this evidence was so easily found, then it should be found and their would be nothing to debate. This is my clarification, although the issue seems resolved.10max01 (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing timeline work

Talkspace isn't an appropriate place for this material. The last version is held at Talk:Binary prefix/Archive 7 for now.

If users are going to continue to work on it, it should be moved to userspace. If someone is willing to adopt it, I'll see about fixing the archives up. Just let me know either here on on my talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive is not a place for something that has been recently updated. Why don't u move it to its own page and link it back from the binary prefix page? Tom94022 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:Archives "you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page." Also Achiving should be by consensus of the editors 1 against and 2 for is not archiving. Accordingly, unless someone can give a good reason, I will reverting the timeline. Tom94022 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The material in question originally dates from three years ago. As I said, I'm happy for it to be moved to userspace if a user is willing to host it. However, this ~70k blob is not conductive to current talk discussion, and if it belonged on talk in the first place it isn't appropriate now. Consensus is developed by discussion; it isn't just a majority vote, so your "2 to 1" statistic is meaningless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tom94022. The prefix timeline is a valuable resource that should be kept accessible. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The most recent update to the timeline that I can find was Feb 2008; with 2 editors for archiving and 2 against, doesn't sound like consensus is close, so it seems the appropriate decision is to restore it while consensus is developed. After all the policy is that the archiving should only take place when consensus is developed Tom94022 (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is for content disputes and things not covered by policy. This is policy. Talk pages are not the personal scrapbooks of random editors. I've already suggested an alternative (moving the thread off of talk space). WP:ARCHIVE is inapplicable here; please pay attention to the arguments I'm making. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continuing at User talk:Tom94022#Talk:Binary prefix archival. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the page. Feel free to move the page from Talk:Binary prefix/History to Chronology of prefix usage if it's felt that it's ready for articlespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

POV section

From the article:

It can be argued that the main purpose of the binary prefixes is to clarify that, according to national and international standards, the traditional SI prefixes always refer to powers of ten, even in the context of information technology. Therefore, rather than measuring the success of the binary prefixes based on how commonly they appear in technical and marketing literature, it may be more appropriate to judge them by their success in restoring the original power-of-ten meaning of the standard SI prefixes in information technology. Binary prefixes are only convenient for a small number of information-technology quantities, most notably the size of address spaces (e.g., of RAM chips). They provide no practical advantage for quantities where powers-of-two times a small integer are not preferred numbers, such as file sizes, download speeds, line rates, symbol rates, clock frequencies, and tape or disk capacities. There, decimal prefixes are far more convenient for mental arithmetic.

This seems like a car crash, POV-pushing and completely unsourced. This should be fixed -62.172.143.205 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --shreevatsa (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The timeline

Thumperward first removed the timeline from this talk page and has now deleted the link to it from the article. My opinion is that this valuable resource should be retained, and that the best place for it is this talk page. What do others think? Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the best place for the timeline - when/if it's completed - is on the main article. Until then there's a link to it from this talk page. This gives people the opportunity to work on it. I tend to agree with Thumperward - if it's an ongoing work it shouldn't be referenced on the main article. This flag once was red 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested that it belongs in the main article, but I would like to be able to access it and (where appropriate) update it. Where is the link to which you refer? Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it was me who thought it should - once finished - go on the main article page. The link is at the top of this page, just above the table of contents. The text reads "A work-in-progress timeline for this topic is being developed at /History." (going back through the history of this page, I think *you* may have added the link ;-) ) This flag once was red 19:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't recall doing that (don't deny it either - memory like a sieve). Anyway, I'm OK with it like that. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again; please someone tell me why the link cannot be in the article? There are many links to talk pages in articles. Personally I think it the timeline is too long for the main article but is perfectly linked from the history section of the article. Maybe I will just move the timeline to an article and then see what Thumperward does to get rid of it Tom94022 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with it being moved to its own page in the article namespace and linked from here. I've indicated as such previously. What is unacceptable is a seealso tag which points to a page in the discussion namespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph beginning "Might be argued" in "adoption" section

I removed the unsourced opinion about how to measure the success of adoption... the one beginning "might be argued." This is out of line unless it says who, exactly, makes this argument... and the who should be a reliable source.

The "adoption" section now merely states facts about adoption without trying to evaluate success or failure. And we should keep it that way. If someone can find suitably reliable sources that state judgements about whether the new units are succeeding or failing, those would, of course, be appropriate to include.

That paragraph makes the point that, according to current standards SI prefixes always mean of 10, even in IT contexts. That's important and I moved it to the lead paragraph.

I changed the last sentence of the lead paragraph to read, simply, "These prefixes are being adopted slowly." I think this conveys both the sense that they are being adopted, and that the adoption is slow, without emphasizing either "adoption" or "slowness." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

P. S. Just for the record, I happen to agree with the first two sentences of the "might be argued" paragraph. That is, I agree with the material I removed. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of POV heading in "Absurdity of binary prefixes"

OK Andareed, you win. But my point, which is that biased headers are not conducive to sensible debate, remains. Perhaps the editor who posted the disputed header would like to rephrase it? Thunderbird2 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As the person who posted the section, I admit to POV not bias, and think POV is perfectly acceptable in a talk page. Tom94022 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that your comments were biased. Only that POV in the heading (which in this case was misinterpreted if I recall correctly) is inappropriate, and can lead to a biased discussion. Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To yr point, it hasn't drawn a lot of attention. I do believe that because of need for scaling when you change prefix and the "non-binary" nature of shifting the binary point (i.e. 10 and 20 are not good binary numbers) no one uses binary prefixes (k or Ki, etc) in any serious calculation. In my POV, this makes binary prefixes absurd, meaningless, useless, etc, for other than marketing or summary applications. So do you have a better suggestion for a caption? Tom94022 (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One way of keeping the POV out of the header might be to rephrase it as a question. Something like "What is the point of binary prefixes?" would be an improvement Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Commonly, historically, but improperly used"

I changed a section title to "SI prefixes commonly, historically, but improperly used in the binary sense". The appearance of this section before the binary prefix section can give the impression that this is somehow preferred or endorsed by Wikipedia. I believe the reality is that this is still the most frequently used set of designations.

But, unlike ordinary dictionary definitions, which are descriptive rather than proscriptive and simply reflect frequency of usage, SI prefixes are defined by a standards organization, and the use of SI prefixes with binary meanings is not correct, however common it may be. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing your edit because it is POV. Also the prefixes are defined as powers of two by the JEDEC, so they are not "improperly used". Fnag aton 13:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that they are improperly used, though it makes the section header too long to put it there. — Omegatron 19:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As you see above I mention the JEDEC. This is the standard. In the standard you will see it defines kilo (K) as "A multiplier equal to 1024 (2¹⁰)." You will also see that it defines byte (B) as "The unit of storage capacity equal to eight bits.". Combining these two terms together to make KB/KByte etc means KB/KByte/kilobyte are defined in the JEDEC standard as 1024 bytes. The section header says "SI prefixes..." this isn't entirely accurate since the prefixes are not SI per se but rather they are collections of letters that just happen to use roughly the same letters as SI. Also the de facto standard in that commonly used in modern language. Omegatron you will be correct to say they are improperly used when only when the majority of people agree with you in the real world and to date you do not have that support, you have nowhere near that support, so you are wrong because the JEDEC standard and common use trump your point of view. Q.E.D. Fnag aton 19:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Omegatron. No amount of quoting JEDEC can alter the fact that the main international scientific and engineering standards bodies define the prefix mega- to mean one million, even when applied to bytes. That convention is followed by the telecommunications industry and by manufacturers of hard disk drives. The software and semiconductor industries are the exceptions to this perfectly good rule. The IEC standard offers a very dim light at the end of a dark tunnel. The way out (for the computer industry as for Wikipedia) is to follow that light. Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No amount of trying to quote the "scientific and engineering standards bodies" can alter the fact that the JEDEC defines those terms and that the real world consensus says that your point of view and the point of view of the "standards body" you prefer is nowhere near being the standard you think it is. It is not correct to push to use one certain "standards" body when the majority of real world consensus does not follow that body. That is why Omegatron and you are wrong. See also. Fnag aton 20:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The JEDEC standard makes interesting reading. The most complete definition in the present context is that of the prefix mega. It speaks volumes:

mega (M) (as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity): A multiplier equal to 1 048 576 (2²⁰ or K² , where K = 1024).

NOTE 1 Contrast with the SI prefix mega (M) equal to 10⁶ , as in a 1-Mb/s data transfer rate, which is equal to 1 000 000 bits per second.

NOTE 2 The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage. IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states “This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated.” Further confusion results from the popular use of a “megabyte” consisting of 1 024 000 bytes to define the capacity of the familiar “1.44-MB” diskette.

Thunderbird2 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think that section heading is too long and inappropriate, I agree with Dpbsmith's point that the lack of context seems to convey the wrong impression. I have added some context at the top of the sections. shreevatsa (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, this was reverted? I have restored the text, please discuss. It seems accurate to me. shreevatsa (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what JEDEC says, because JEDEC can't define SI units. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point, so I will spell it out. The definition implies first that a megabit in "semiconductor storage" is: 1 Mbit = 1024² bit, whereas if it is moving from one computer to another ("data transfer"): 1 Mbit = 1000² bit. Confused? There's more. They then point out that the binary definitions are deprecated by IEEE and are included only to reflect common usage. The JEDEC definition is full of holes. Thunderbird2 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong Thunderbird2 because the JEDEC standard spells it out that K and M are defined as powers of two and it basically says that the SI definitions go against what is accepted and therefore defacto and correct use for the subject. The JEDEC definitions are not full of holes, that is your POV. The IEEE and SI definitions are "full of holes" (to use your language) because they go against real world consensus. The fact is that the units you prefer do not have consensus for use, so do not keep on pushing for them to be used. If you are really interested in reducing what you think is ambiguity rather than pushing for certain units to be used then disambiguate using the exact number of bytes with power notation, like it says in MOSNUM. Fnag aton 07:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fnagaton, please stop inventing a real world consensus which never existed. Neither the one nor the other way. The whole discussion is due to the lack of such a consensus. Also in real world, independently of whether the decimal or the binary meaning is considered, you loose either major operating system/software manufacturers etc. or the mass storage media manufacturers/network hardware manufacturers/ISPs etc. Both groups are big enough to be relevant to a "real world consensus".--213.183.10.41 (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong because I am not inventing anything and do not attempt misrepresent me while sitting behind your "anonymous" IP account. The situation is accurate as I have described it and I have provided data that shows this to be the case. Also the consensus is a matter of record here on Wikipedia during previous discussions on this topic. Fnag aton 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrt the original point: I think it is wrong to call the section "historically, but improperly used". The IEC prefixes were introduced only in 1999, and it was made a full IEEE standard only in 2005. The reference to the SI note about "They should not be used to indicate powers of 2" is from 2006, although probably older references exist. So until recently, abusing the SI prefixes for binary usage had been the only way to indicate them, and it has been so much common that it was even mentioned in the JEDEC standard, with a caveat. So all those people historically using SI prefixes in the binary sense weren't "wrong" then; the usage is only wrong now. The rules have changed recently, so it's not fair to retroactively label the old usage as breaking the rules. And all those still using the SI prefixes are arguably doing so because that is what they are familiar with; it takes time for change to happen. shreevatsa (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both decimal and binary conventions have been in use, and one of those conventions is wrong. :) That SI didn't make a statement about it until 2006 doesn't mean that they approved of it before then. Keep in mind that the original use of "1k" to mean "1024 bytes" was just an approximation, and was perfectly correct. It's only when you get to bigger numbers that the binary convention becomes erroneous. — Omegatron 03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Shreevatsa I changed your edit because it is still not correct. Using them as powers of two is not "wrong" and only some standards bodies have deprecated the use, the JEDEC for instance still defines them as powers of two and the JEDEC is a standards body. Your edit implied all standards bodies and that is not correct because only some have. Also just because a standards body you might prefer defines something it does not make the use of something that goes against the standards body wrong especially in the case when that "standard" has not been widely accepted. Have a look at the comment from Greg on my talk page about why and when Wikipedia ignores some "standards". Obviously in this case the real world consensus is to not follow SI/IEEE/IEC and that means using KB/MB/GB with powers of two is not "wrong". Omegatron you are wrong for the same reason because both decimal and power of two use is correct, it's just that the standards body you prefer for this particular subject is not widely followed. A "standard" that is not widely followed by the real world is a failed standard and Wikipedia wisely makes the choice to ignore those standards. This is shown by the clear wording in WP:MOSNUM#Binary prefixes regarding the consensus. Fnag aton 06:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the wording regarding consensus makes it clear that disambiguation of the binary KB is acceptable using either 1 KB = 1024 B or 1 KB = 1 KiB:

There is no consensus to use the newer IEC-recommended prefixes in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units. There is consensus that editors should not change prefixes from one style to the other, especially if there is uncertainty as to which term is appropriate within the context—one must be certain whether "100 GB" means binary not decimal units in the material at hand before disambiguation. When this is certain the use of parentheses for binary prefixes, for example "256 KB (256×2¹⁰bytes)", is acceptable, as is the use of footnotes to disambiguate prefixes. Use of IEC prefixes is also acceptable for disambiguation (256 KiB).

Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For disambiguation, not the main units. Not forgetting what the guideline then goes on to say: "stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor." Fnag aton 07:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean your favorite version of the MOSNUM says that. The "first major contributor" rule was added without discussion, just so that it could be used to override consensus in situations like this one. If there is no site-wide consensus (as the first sentence states), then the issue is decided on a per-article basis by the editors of that particular article, according to the needs of that article - not by an arbitrary rule that favors one style over another. — Omegatron 03:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)