Talk:Hard disk drive/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Hard disk drive. 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 1

←

Archive 5

Other vendors?

Should the history section discuss disk technology at other vendors, e.g., Burroughs, RCA? Or is it intended to be IBM centric? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The history section is a summary of the more detailed History of hard disk drive article. As such most vendor technological history should be discussed there. FWIW, I suspect little of the early BUNCH technology, other than perhaps CDC, will rise to a level sufficient to any article since IBM dominated the industry until the late 60s, by which point most of the BUNCH were buying disk drives. Tom94022 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The one significant development that I'm aware of is that Burroughs had head per track disks well before IBM did.

Since head per track existed in drums well before HDDs were invented, IMHO this certainly does not rise to the level of inclusion in this HDD article. It might make sense in the time line portion of the History of disk drive article but note that Disk/Trend does not rate any head/track event as an industry first. Tom94022 (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The significance of head per track disks was economic; disk drives were generally less expensive than comparable drum drives. Neither Burroughs nor IBM introduced any new drums once they were manufacturing head per track disks. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So why don't you create an article on Head Per Track Disk Drives and link it from this article? There is a lot of material on the web including Burroughs, IBM, Honneywell, DataDisk, etc. Tom94022 (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Time: I'm finding that the small number of articles I planned to work on really should have Wiki links to other material that doesn't currently exist. As a result, my personal todo list keeps expanding.

If I added links to such an article I'd have to also add links or notes on the aftermarket for 2305-compatible solid state devices. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Wiki policy is on unusual dead ends, but the RCA Data Record File (Jukebox) had a selection mechanism to move disks to a turntable and had a long spiral track on each platter instead of concentric tracks. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You might read WP:LENGTH; by my count the HDD article is about 10 kwords or 60 kcharacters which means it's too long so we should avoid adding trivial material or sections and consider splitting stuff out. IMO, the best place for the RCA jukebox might be its own article with perhaps a link in the SEE ALSO section of the History of disk drives article, not this article. Tom94022 (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless the History of hard disk drives article is too large, I suspect that to be the best place for a mention of the RCA Data Record File. I don't believe that it is important enough to warrant a separate article. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirection

I'm confused. Why does a search for "External Hard Drives" redirect here (Hard disk drive) instead of to External hard disk drive? Zeniff 20:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeniffMartineau (talk • contribs)

It doesn't anymore. I just fixed it. Raywil (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :) ZeniffMartineau (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Seagate 3TB

It should be noted that Seagate made a 3 TB hard drive. Maybe add it when it gets released. --152.31.193.40 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Notes on a reversion of some intro changes

Per the three sentences added in this revision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_disk_drive&oldid=371238723

"Hard disk drives have been dominant device for secondary storage of data in computer systems since the early 1960s. They have maintained this position because advances in their areal recording density have kept pace with the requirements for secondary storage."

The problem with the first sentence is that 'computer systems' is too broad a term. Personal computers existed for almost ten years before the first feasible hard disk entered the market, and it was ten more before they became standard equipment. While they may have been dominant storage mechanism for mainframes and the like, I see no information on Wikipedia or otherwise to support that assertion. My impression was that many large systems relied on solid-state memory long after the introduction of hard disks.

The second sentence is akin to saying 'The United States continues to exist as a nation because it has adhered to its Constitutional principles.' It's almost a tautology, grossly incomplete, and not necessarily accurate. Some would say that storage capacity drives storage utilization, or that the two are symbiotic. The article could benefit from a section comparing the hard disk to other technologies in a historical context, but a single line in the introduction is the wrong place for it.

These two sentences are a paraphrase taken from Magnetic Storage Handbook 2nd Ed., Section 2.1.1, Disk File Technology, Mee and Daniel, (c)1990 and as such are a reliable source which is more than can be said for your replacement sentences or your "impression." Furthermore since disk drives predate PCs by about 20 years so having a statement limited to PCs is a rather myopic presentation in an introductory paragraph. The Wiki link secondary storage in part answers a need for discussion of alternatives. I do agree that a better term could be found for computer systems perhaps general purpose computers. With this change, I suggest we revert. Tom94022 (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There mere act of writing a sentence in a book does not make it accurate or authoritative. It's incomplete at best, and without extrapolation in the body of the article, it has no place in the introduction. I notice that you disputed the factual accuracy of the revision I wrote accounting for cost, size, and capacity. Do you contend that cost and size were irrelevant to the success of hard disks? Alexdi (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It happens that the book is authoritative and the sentence is accurate, but the requirement is a reliable source, which this happens to be and which your reversions happens not to have. I dispute the accuracy of your paragraph in the context of the HDD industry; it had a long history prior to PCs and many other form factors beyond those two discussed. If the removed paragraph is incomplete, which I don't think so, then the appropriate action is to add to the article rather than remove it, or tag it for additional work, not revert to an even more incomplete paragraph. BTW, why is it incomplete - areal density is discussed thereinafter and both link to secondary storage? Tom94022 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"This article discusses the physical disk drives, not the appearance that a disk subsystem presents to the host."

I don't follow this line and have no idea why it was added. The title of the article is 'Hard disk drive' and the lead picture is of the internals of a hard disk. I see no reason to point out what isn't discussed. If the intent is to prevent emphasis on tangential areas by future contributors, the guideline should not appear in the article itself. Alexdi (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While rather self evident I see no need to strike; the editor who added it thought it was worthwhile. Again I suggest we revert Tom94022 (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't defended the content. Alexdi (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Several comments.

First, for the use of disk drives as secondary storage on mainframes, IBM was not the only company to introduce operating systems in the 1960's that required disk drives: Burroughs, GE, RCA and UNIVAC all did. Solid state memory came along after disk drives were in wide use, and was far too expensive to displace them except for high performance applications, e.g., as replacements for 2305 paging disks. What solid state memory displaced was core, except in hostile environments. These days that's changing, but disks are still less expensive.

Second, if the article is intended to discuss only the head-disk assembly then inappropriate redirects to the article, e.g., from [[Enterprise disk drive]], should be removed. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You now have two editors who disagree with your revision/edit and none who support it. I am going to try an edit which combines the two and we will see where we go from there. Tom94022 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, Tom. This article is written terribly. It desperately needs a style overhaul, which is why I rewrote the introduction in the first place. Your version of 'clarifying and expanding' is to butcher phrasing that's pleasing to read in favor of an alternative that makes my eyes hurt. The article would improve significantly if you'd let it evolve for more than ten minutes. Alexdi (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is one of accuracy, not of style. I agree that the style could be improved, but that doesn't justify introducing errors.

As for letting it evolve, reverting incorrect changes is part of the evolutionary process. Why don't you try rewriting the introduction in a better style while presenting the same information? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Data Transfer rate is an exponential behavior relative to time, not linear as the article states

In the Data transfer rate section of the article,

"While these advances exponentially increase storage capacity, the performance gains they enable are linear. Throughput relative to capacity in new generations of hard disks has therefore fallen with time."

This is incorrect, at least with modern drives that utilize the Perpendicular Magnetic Recording (PMR) design. The sustained transfer rate of newer drives that have far higher areal densities than previous generation (because storage capacity is advancing exponentially), are showing large leaps in sustained transfer rate improvement over a short period of time (large improvement across each newer generation; Exponential.

I will edit this section of the discussion board again sometime with a proposed alteration to this section of the article, when I have time and to wait for feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.147.120 (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I edited the article. Here is the original text:::"While these advances exponentially increase storage capacity, the performance gains they enable are linear. As a result, even though the absolute read speed of newer hard drives is faster, it generally takes longer to back it up."

Modified to:: "While these advances exponentially increase both storage capacity and thus performance, the performance gains are on a far slower curve than that of capacity improvement. As a result, even though the absolute read speed of newer hard drives is faster, it generally takes longer to back it up becuase capacity is increasing at a faster rate than performance." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.147.120 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

HDDs vs HDD's

Recently Sanspeur tried to correct the grammar in the intro section.

The presentation of an HDD to its host is determined by its controller. This may differ substantially from the HDDs native interface particularly in mainframes or servers.

The change was to correct the entry HDDs to HDD's as a possessive of a singular noun. Currently it reads as a plural of a noun, but that is not the intent of the sentence. Often times people will erroneously add an apostrophe s to a word to show a plural noun which is in error. This time the change to apostrophe s would have been appropriate. You can see that the sentence is a possessive condition because you are reword it as:

This may differ substantially from the native interface of the HDD particularly in mainframes or servers.

You can see the sentence makes sense because we are talking about the interface which is a possession of the HDD. Unless there is opposition to this change I propose we get a few to confirm my assumption and make the change to HDD's. § Music Sorter § (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that analysis and don't really have anything further to add. HDD's would be correct. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree Tom94022 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my revert was just a blunder (I had probably been fixing bad English on some other article and failed to see the possessive usage). Feel free to revert any of my edits without needing a discussion: an edit summary would be fine. I just substituted "drive's" because I think "HDD" is used too often in the lead, but please change that if anyone wants (no need to discuss). Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, your new solution/modification is even better to prevent people from thinking it was a typo of a plural noun. § Music Sorter § (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

MB Per GB

The page claims that there are 1000MB in a single GB, and a thousand GB ina a TB, but isn't it 1024? --Fulizer (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Read Kibibyte and pick what you want to believe. Disk drives use powers of 10, semiconductor memory uses powers of 2, and other things use whatever the marketing department wants. It's just numbers, dude...--Wtshymanski (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen MB = 1024000 bytes. We knowingly misused K, M, etc., back when it was safe to assume that everyone understood that we were misusing them; that is obviously no longer a safe assumption. It's well past time to stop. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't go to the lumber yard very many times before you realize a "2 x 4" has no dimension exactly equal to 2" or 4", nor visit the hardware store often before you notice that a "3/4 inch pipe fitting" has no dimension of 0.75000 inches. Nominal sizes are quite common. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: In hard drive labeling, the M, G, etc., prefixes are used in their powers-of-1000 sense: 1 GB on a hard drive box means 1000 MB, 1 MB means 1000 KB, and 1 KB means 1000 bytes; and so it has been since the very first hard drive. Windows however reports the sizes of hard drives, partitions, files, etc., using the same prefixes to mean powers of 1024 - as it does with memory. See Binary prefix for the whole confusing story. p.s.: MB = 1024000 bytes was only ever re. floppy disks AFAIK. Jeh (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Misleading text

From the "Technology" section:

HDDs record data by magnetizing ferromagnetic material directionally, to represent either a 0 or a 1 binary digit. They read the data back by detecting the magnetization of the material.

Although it does not say so outright this verbiage at best does nothing to countradict, and at worst could be read as perpetuating, the myth that a 0 is represented by magnetization with one polarity and a 1 with the opposite polarity. I have tried but have not been able to come up with a succinct way of telling, if not the whole truth, something which is much closer to the truth than this. Anyone? Jeh (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

how about

User data are recorded by HDDs as a series of physically separated magnetic transitions (north to south, south to north, etc) written onto a ferromagnetic material; during playback the transitions are detected and decoded to recover the user data.

More precisely, user data bits are encoded into channel data bits where the ones in the channel data bits are represented by a transition written onto a ferromagnetic material ... But that maybe TMI Tom94022 (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to think much about this yet, but I see that the article is not wrong, it's just that it can easily be read as suggested by Jeh. I think something simpler might be preferable, just referring to information being coded into a pattern of changes of magnetic polarity. Tricky to do it correctly and helpfully in a few words. Johnuniq (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it now, especially after someone fixed my spelling errors? Closer, but maybe too long, though links help shuffle the details. It would be a highly encyclopediac addition to the article to explain how we can now get terabytes into the space that used to be a megabyte; we'd get to mention cool things like "giant magnetoresistance". I imagine IBM figures hugely in this story. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

OK by me Tom94022 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Firewire drives

To the best of my knowledge all Firewire drives are a subsystem consisting of a conventional HDD with a controller that translates the native interface into a Firewire interface. This is an article about HDDs and not about the subsystems so Firewire as well as many other subsystem's interfaces, e.g. ethernet, should not be listed in the "connects to" portion of the info box. Accordingly I reverted Technolust's change. Note this is explained as a hidden note in the infobox. Tom94022 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, a SCSI drive used to be an MFM drive with a built in controller, etc. and I'm sure a USB drive isn't USB all the way to the read-write head. What do we want to identify? The cable between the motherboard and the drive enclosure, or the cable between the drive and the drive enclosure? Pick the boundaries. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

When a SCSI attached subsystem consisted of an HBA a SCSI controller and an MFM drive, SCSI was not a drive interface and would not be appropriate for the article. As soon as native SCSI drives became available, SCSI became a drive interface and thereinafter should have been be included. This all happened before Wikipedia. USB recently became a native HDD interface; its disk controller built into the HDD. Firewire is not yet and probably never will be a native drive interface. Nor for that matter is Ethernet even though NAS subsystems could arguably be just as much an HDD as are firewire drives (a drive with its native interface plus a controller and maybe a power supply all in one box). Tom94022 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If I mean by "bare drive" something that, if you took the covers off, you'd see the disk platters, then I understand you to be saying that USB now goes down to the bare drive but Firewire currently does not. We should explain this in the article. I truncated the "info" box because I thought it was ambiguous, irrelevant, and just too much detail to put into a box. FireWire, Ethernet and so on are ways to interface to a box that has drives+cable interface+power supply in it. We have to be clear about what "drive" means when talking about "drive interfaces" - if I buy a disk drive at Staples, I'm as likely need an Ethernet cable as an SATA cable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Temporary" ?

The article says something like Since hard drives have reached a temporary 2TB MBR partition limitation in the last few years,. This wants explaining. We should probably link MBR which I think means "Master boot record". Why is this "temporary"? How "temporary" - fixed in the weekly Windows service pack, or fixed when all of today's computers have hit the trash and new machines with new BIOSes come out? And why does the MBR limit drive size to 2 TB? As long as the BIOS can find the Windows boot loader, what does the MBR matter? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that the MBR sector also contains (in addition to the boot code) the partition table, which is of extremely constrained size. The whole truth would be close to: "The format of the MBR limits the location of any partition an MBR-only BIOS wants to boot from to within the first 2 TB, and similarly limits the location of any partition an MBR-using OS wants to find." There is no hard and fast reason why partitions beyond 2 TB could not be located by other means, even if the boot partition was found via MBR. It is just a widely accepted convention that either the MBR partition table describes all of the drive's partitions, or else the drive is organized with a GPT. Never MBR + something else to describe partitions beyond 2 TB. (Well, unless you're running VMS, which lacks the partition concept completely; no one misses it.)

Windows today can already boot from GPT disks (assuming an EFI BIOS) as of course can MacOS and Linux. I think the real point here is to avoid an implication that the hard drive makers are somehow responsible for the limits of the MBR. It is probably the case that HD makers are reluctant to ship 3 GB drives to the consumer space as they will be just asking for a bazillion support calls due to the MBR issue... but at the moment that guess is pure OR. Jeh (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That was wonderful, I didn't understand a thing. Could we possibly work in a few more TLA and ETLAs on our way to nominating this for Feature Article (whoops, sorry, the in-crowd says FA) status? Is this a fundamental limit of the laws of physics, or just another consequence of the IBM PC design that we're living with? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Big iron

Is there anyone born before 1985 working on this article? What do "big iron" computers use today, and what did they use prior to Microsoft's foundation? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I seem to recall that HDD history was forked into the History of hard disk drives article so us big iron guys have been for the most part banished there and other places (e.g. Disk Formating where one can learn that there is life before and after 512 bytes). BTW, I agree that there is no need for yet a another fork to "History of external hard drives" - in the beginning and for many years they were only external. Tom94022 (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest merge

External hard disk is mostly redundant with this article. The existence of "external" drives can be acknowledged with about 3 lines in this article, which would seem sufficient. Suggest merge. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Refimprove tag

I'm glad to see the biggest problem the article has now is a lack of references in the "speed" section. My goodness, here I was worried about organization and clarity; maybe even filling in glaring holes in the content. Like, what if anything happened between 1956 and 1998, say? Instead we can just insert "feel good" tags into articles. I should have just inserted a "cleanup" tag, that's as good as actually *doing* the work, right? Or we could grab a mop. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry my actions bother you, but part of doing the work when you're added/changing material is providing references. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, right. Happy tagging. What does the "guild of copy editors" do, again? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry to have miffed you, but this article is not exempt from WP:V. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see per WP:V "any material ... likely to be challenged" in the Speed section so I also wonder what particular value Nuujinn has added to the article. In the absence of specificity I am going to remove the tag. If Nuujinn wants to challenge anything within the section he could do a useful service by challenging specific material or better yet finding a reference for the material or, if it is in error, correcting it. Just sprinkling tags about really doesn't help anyone. JMO Tom94022 (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There are large sections of this article that are not sourced, and the material here, like all material on wikipedia, should be attributed to a reliable source. You're entitled to your opinion, but using a tag to request improvement in references is a legitimate action--that's what the tags are for. Presumably editors adding material to this article have sources at hand, so why not add them. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have references, please add them. In my opinion, adding a refrence is more value to the article than adding tags. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't have sources for everything. I have added some material and a couple of references, and did some copy edits. Tags do serve a purpose in drawing attention to areas that could use some improvement, and there's no need to get wound up about them. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RTFP — "in practice not everything need actually be attributed." The Section tagged has one reference, the article has eighty plus references. It seems to me the editors of this article are doing a reasonable job of referencing. If Nuujinn has a legitimate challenge to any statement in the section or article he should identify them or better yet fix them. Sprinkling Refimprove tags indiscriminately about serves no purpose other than to add to the 101,635 existing tags that for the most part are not being worked on. Tom94022 (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. And, according to WP:BURDEN, any material that is not sourced can be removed. Personally, I think a refimprove tag at a section level is a very polite way to ask for improvements in sources, and is less invasive than extended use of the cn tag, but since you all seem to prefer the latter I'll use them here. Whether or not articles that are tagged are not being worked on is open to discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't respect it's contributors, that's why this sort of thing happens. If we trusted our contributors, we could accept that they knew what they were talking about when the sumarized perfectly standard concepts related to a topic. Instead we have the present model where in principle any random drive-by IP editor can challenge "The sky is blue" with a tag, and Stephen Hawking couldn't refute it.

I picked up an older edition of Moeller's handbook on upgrading and repairing PCs at Value Village; it's old, but my packed-away copy was even older. Anyway, it has a lot of really quotable sections on disk drives that I can cite here, though it is not useful on the 25-odd years before the XT. We still haven't done enough in the article, to this date, to explain jsut *why* we went from $2000 and 5 megabytes in 1980 to $100 and 2 terabytes 30 years later. That is a far more interesting story than the incredibly banal list of dimensions that we do have (also unreferenced), though at least someone's put in the biggest capacity of drive made in each form factor with dates. Where's giant magnetoresistance, thin-film heads, oxide vs. plated media, glass disks? Not here, and not in the History of hard disk drives article either. Though I notice one brave soul suggested a History of external disk drives article. Good luck figuring out how a disk drive actually works, from the present text; I hope we can improve this. First make it readable, then make it accurate, then make it comprehensive. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RTFP — "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." Apparently you disagree with WP:V when you tag facts not likely to be challenged and don't make a reasonable effort to find sources of the facts you think might be in dispute. I have removed two of your tags because are facts that "in practice do not have to be attributed" as follows:

The published RPMs of all HDDs are mathematically transformed in to milliseconds
The published average seek times of all HDDs are in milliseconds
The published data rates of all HDDs mathematically yield data transfer times for any reasonable block transfer of at most a few milliseconds.

There are numerous cites to HDD specs already in the article than make the adding of such cites to these facts superfluous. Tom94022 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, respectfully, you are missing the point. The text reads "These two delays are on the order of milliseconds each. The bit rate or data transfer speed once the head is in the right position creates lesser delays." Yes, drive speeds are measured in milliseconds. Any delay can be measured milliseconds. It would be more useful to have a specific reference with an actual speed. Also, please refrain from making assumptions about whether or not I have made a reasonable effort to find sources.

Wtshymanski, I agree completely with you regarding the lack of history and scope of the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Geologic time can be measured in milliseconds, but the sentence says the delays are "on the order of milliseconds" - "on the order" usually means " not millions of times larger" but comparable. Does it really serve the reader's interest to know the seek time of a RAMAC was 650 milliseconds and of an IBM XT drive was 83 milliseconds, but the Binford 6100 disk drive has a seek time of 7 milliseconds and the model 6100A (with a Windows logo on it) takes only 6 milliseconds? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Many of the 80+ "references" are press releases or data sheets for drives. We can do better than *that*. Let's find some references that don't fall out of Google or at least come from real books, not data sheets. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO data sheets are good enough in the sense and spirit of WP:RS. What if a manufacturer cheated? The competition would blame them faster than you can spell l-a-w-y-e-r. They might be a bit optimistic, ie a new drive in perfect condition, not one which barely made the quality check. I do think however that the resulting error is <1ms. The seek time paragraph within the Speed section is well-written IMO; by providing one to two significant figures, it des not trespass into false precision.

Maybe the form factor, capacity, shock resistance, and access time characteristics, along with the data sheets should be moved into the History article, as they are still changing. User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between a parts catalog and an encyclopedia article, but less difference between a parts catalog and a Wikipedia article. We love parts lists on Wikipedia because they are so easy to write. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

List in History Section

I suggest we all should feel free to add a FEW more highlight measurements and possibly metric conversion to the list of measurements in History Section, but I think the list should be short with all product specific examples in the main history article. I also think the values of the measurements in the list should be generic so that the list does not have to be continuously updated as the areal density progression continues.

Accordingly I backed out some recent changes that reflected the latest products and prices but really didn't add to the point of the section. As it reads now I believe the progression is reasonably accurate for today's state of the art. Comments? Tom94022 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Technology > Components and overall quality

After having read the whole article, here are my thoughts:

The overall quality is quite high and very accessible. It is well written and has a good flow.
The components subsection inside the technology section is a bit obscure to me. I think it needs rewording.
There are many images showing the same things in the articles. Maybe consider removing some of them?

Kudos to the writers anyway.

#!/bin/DokReggar -talk 09:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I took a first hack at the components section; it still needs some work which I will get to later. Tom94022 (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the components section: it seems better to me, however needs a further bit of editing; it is really unclear for me, and I think I have more knowledge on physics and mechanics than the lay person who would read this article. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 09:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You can tell me here what u think is unclear but why don't u take a stab at improving the section - it's usually better when the work is done interactively? Tom94022 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What is Speed

disk drive speed can be measured by? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.52.166 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just above: Depends on what you call speed: data rate or angular velocity? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 09:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Speed can also refer to seek times or average access time, it all depends upon context.Tom94022 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Damaged hard disk photos

hi guys! i have damaged hard disk photos!! could anyone update it in wikipedia? thanks a lot!!! roberto spadim - brazil - são paulo/sp http://www.spadim.com.br/hd%20agra.zip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.161.132.95 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Write Verification

Can anyone confirm whether writes are verified immediately or at all? If so, is this done by the read head being just behind the write head, or is it re-read on the next revolution? Ajoiner (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In the vast majority of drives there is just one head per surface. (A few high-performance server drives have two heads and two separate actuators, but this is used for seek performance improvement, not for read-after-write verification.) They don't do read-after-write on the next rev either. If they did, writing would be markedly slower than reading, and it isn't... if you want read-after-write verification you'd have to program that in the host. Jeh (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Ajoiner (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

error wiht harddisk

my harddisk when i press power button . doesnotngoto thw BIOS mode and safemode it hanged....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.237.222 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

please update revenue

Worldwide revenue from shipments of HDDs is expected to reach $27.7 billion in 2010, up 18.4% from $23.4 billion in 2009[77] corresponding to a 2010 unit shipment forecast of 674.6 million compared to 549.5 million units in 2009.[78]

Can someone update this? Also, it would be nice to get the help requests out of here. This isn't tech support.130.166.41.124 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Someone" could be you. Take the existing references and see if you can find later versions, for example. Jeh (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I saw that 194.72.129.29 has made several vandalism edits (all reverted) in this page and others. Maybe a temporary block would be useful? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 08:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:194.72.129.29 -talk is a school that seems to have periodic vandalism spasms, I suggest u report it Tom94022 (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Performance Section Vandalism

RaptorHunter has reverted my attempts to consolidate and update the Performance Section of this article. Speed previously a separate section is more accurately a subsection of Performance and is more accurately entitled Access Time. The subsection of Performance on Data Transfer Rate has a "non-sequitor on manipulation of sequential data" which is better off eliminated. The recently added sentences on comparing rotational speed is just wrong. Its hard for me to understand what RaptorHunter disagrees with since he reverts with minimal comment, the latest of which is a personal attack. I would appreciate it if other editors took a look at my proposed edits and tried to make them better. Tom94022 (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just looked.. They look fine to me., and I agree with your assessment of the discussion of "manipulation of sequential data". (Fact is that most drives spend most of their time operating in a very much NON-sequential manner, so even if there had been some valid, properly RS'd points in that text its real-world applicability is in question.) Jeh (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing against consensus

This edit by Wtshymanski adds the table back again which does not have consensus. So I have reverted the whole change. 220.255.2.35 (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus, but aren't you and your IEC Binary prefix thought police the ones who are editing against the lack of consensus since you started this by removing the long standing table? Tom94022 (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Also the comment aboyut "IEC Binary prefix thought police" is uncalled for. 220.255.2.44 (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

also reverted this edit also against consensus. 220.255.2.26 (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tom94022: if there is no consensus for a change then it doesn't happen. If it is already applied then it is reversed. Asserting that there is no consensus is arguing against your own position. Personally I couldn't give a damn about the whole gigabyte vs gibibyte thing: it is the kind of petty squabble that wastes millions of hours across Wikipedia and achieves absolutely nothing. However, even I am now watching for that change since you have at a stroke invalidated your own argument. Crispmuncher (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC).

I disagree. The talk page consensus in the RfC above is clearly against having the table with IEC prefixes therefore any edit that restores the table with IEC prefixes is against that consensus.Fnag aton 11:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are still in your war against binary prefixes. The table was there for a long time and is needed to explain why a lot of OS report an 1 TB drive as having 931 GiB. Although I must admit the table may lead to misunderstandings and needs to be improved and/or with an additional explanation in text form. --Denniss (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a stretch to assert there is any consensus at all in the RfC above. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're simply counting votes, then no. But consensus is not reached by majority vote, it's reached by evaluation of the arguments one way vs. the other. I haven't seen any compelling arguments for including the IEC prefixes in this table and I've seen multiple compelling arguments against; I don't think it's close at all. Jeh (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the RfC is ongoing, I think it's fair to say there is no local consensus yet. Regardless, edit wars are disruptive and need to stop. I think the IEC content should be kept out of the article until an uninvolved admin determines consensus and closes the RfC. — Becksguy (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh tosh, this isn't an edit war. Calling Tesla a Croatian, now THAT's an edit war. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski please stop editing against consensus. If you don't stop then you could be blocked. 220.255.2.66 (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The table was there long before this RFC. There is no consensus for it to be removed. Therefore it will be restored, until a consensus is reached otherwise.--RaptorHunter (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are beginning to exhibit WP:OWN issues, RaptorHunter. You’d be wise to take a wikibreak if you keep up at what is increasingly appearing to be tendentious behavior.

With regard to Tom94022’s observation that an outcome at odds with his wishes must be the product of “thought police”, it’s properly called “technical writing police”. We could have a table on Wikipedia that goes

One barrel of oil = 42 gallons = 0.159 cubic meters = 4.667 firkin

It doesn’t matter if “firkins” were blessed by the Vulcan HIgh Command, if Earth isn’t paying attention, all the use of firkins accomplishes is makes a small cabal of wikipedians happy, who are bent on promoting the world-wide adoption of the weird unit. It’s not about us, the wikipedians; it’s about properly serving our readership. That’s what MOSNUM is for, to ensure consistent style and editorial practices across the project. There is no point exposing our readership to confusing units of measure that aren’t used in the industry when communicating to a general-interest readership if Wikipedia is the only place the average general-interest reader will ever see the unit used; that much is a Well… DUH! objective of technical writing.

BTW, you never have responded to my inquiry, RaptorHunter as to whether or not you are the editor behind the User:Thunderbird2 account. Your writing style, fondness for cool fighter jets, tenacity, and way of thinking suggests to me that you two might be operated by the same individual. Might you make a statement for the community here on that matter? Greg L (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, guess what. The article is locked down again as of 17:42 UTC today. And, of course, in the wrong version, this time for seven days. That should give us time to put this issue to bed. Or not. As a matter of perspective, we have written about 15K words on this page so far. Is the issue really worth that much virtual ink. Just musing philosophical. — Becksguy (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Debate continue...

Aside from tone, which I don't see as a big deal, the real problem with the referenced imbedded comment is this: It says "The purpose of the table is to compare kilo- and kibi-style prefixes", but no OS in anything like common use uses kibi-style prefixes to display HD sizes - so why compare them? No, Ubuntu's 1% user base does not count. If consensus is reached to include this then I will insist on also including a column for "blocks" as displayed by VMS. Jeh (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We should have put a stop to this nonsense just by pointing out that the RSs directed to a general-interest readership aren’t using kibibytes and tibibytes to denote storage space, and the hard drive manufacturers aren’t using such terminology when they sell bare drives or external drives in boxes at retail locations. To my knowledge, the hard drive manufacturers aren’t even using such terminology to communicate with engineers, but that’s just icing on the cake since this article isn’t directed to that kind of readership.

The First Commandment on Wikipedia is “Thy articles shall follow the majority of the RSs”. Why this table has been allowed to persist so long is only because of certain editors who have claimed ownership to this article and cybersquatted it. I took a look at who has been deleting tags on this article with which he disagrees, and tags sections when another editor adds information he disagrees with. There has been an outrageous amount of WP:OWN going on here for far too long. It is our readership that suffers when there is an imbalance like this and the checks & balances that normally apply across Wikipedia don’t apply in islands like this. Greg L (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Amazing. It's a table, it compares the binary prefixes with the decimal ones, the whole point of the existence of the binary prefixes is to account for usages that naturally fall into multiples of powers of two - this is the perfect place to show what the binary prefixes look like, and to explain why Microsoft Windows shows a disk size as multiples of 2^30 bytes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

“Explaining” can be accomplished without using unfamiliar units of measure that virtually no general-interest reader encounters in the real world. This is just a bunch of beating around the bush to promote the adoption of units that the rest of the planet chooses to simply not adopt. The IEC fanatics hijacked Wikipedia’s articles with that crap for three years before it dawned on the rest of the community that it was naive to have thought Wikipedia had that kind of influence. Then the rest of the community rode herd of the fanatics and applied common sense: we follow what the majority of the RSs do.

And I don’t understand why you would post this picture. All it does is prove the two points we’ve been making: 1) That “GiB” isn’t used in the real world, and 2) that “GB” has two different meanings depending on context; it either means 1000³ bytes or it means 1024³ bytes. This issue would should have been a slam-dunk long ago for simply not following what 99% of the RSs do. Greg L (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The table is lazy editing. The article text explains the issue in the paragraphs preceding the table, and that explanation does not involve the IEC units. A little reworking of those paragraphs would clear any remaining uncertainty—obviating the need for a techo-table. A table should be a summary of concepts in the text, however the article does not mention "TiB", "GiB", "MiB", or "KiB". Regarding the table, there is little relevance today in the "MiB" row, no relevance in the "KiB" row, and the the "B" line is bizarre in this article. The proponents of the table need more experience to understand how we should be writing articles to assist our average readership—not introducing unused terminology that only serves to confuse. GFHandel. 21:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think the IEC binary prefixes should not be use in Wikipedia articles. I buy a dozen or so hard drives a year and have not noticed any IEC binary prefix notations. I have served on several national standards committees for over 10 years and have observed that some standards are rapidly adopted by industry and some never gain any traction. Kibibytes are 13 years old and have near zero adoption. The Universal Serial Bus (USB) standard was released in 1996 and was widely adopted within 5 years. I just flew in from Italy on Lufthansa airlines and the in-cabin flight information said we were at 38,000 feet. The aircraft industry has been slow to adopt meters for altitude measurements. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

By that logic we should take out all of the equations in this article and replace them with diagrams of balls rolling around on rubber sheets because that won't "confuse" our "average readership"--RaptorHunter (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah—the equations are linked to concepts in the text (unlike the IEC prefixes in the table). Please don't introduce nebulous examples that extend the arguments presented on this page (arguments you might care to directly address). GFHandel. 22:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt if 1% of the readers knows what a Higgs boson is yet there are 220 or so articles using the term. The issue is not whether the HDD manufacturers use IEC binary prefixes, they never have and have no reason to change. The issue is that some of our readers may encounter IEC Binary Prefixes in the reporting of HDD capacity (the 1% Ubuntu users being a prime example) and this is the appropriate section of the appropriate article to explain the differences and inform the uninformed. Also while the IEC Binary Prefix thought police claim consensus, in reality three of them act in concert to suppress meaningful discussion as is going on right here. Tom94022 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please name the three, and could you please give examples of how meaningful discussion here has been suppressed? GFHandel. 01:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing argument not germane to the article

== Combative hidden editors’ note ==

I see that someone had this hidden editors note over the table:

The purpose of the table is to compare kilo- and kibi-style prefixes - think about that before wiping out the kibibytes again.

That seemed terribly combative and to be an unusual tone that would never normally be permissible on Wikipedia. But then, this particular article doesn’t seem to be a normal part of Wikipedia nowadays. I can only guess as to what editor might have been responsible for such an editors’ note. And, given that we have some tendentious editors on Wikipedia, I thought it unwise to delete such an tone and instead simply expanded it with this:

Please see [[WP:MOSNUM#Quantities of bytes and bits]] for additional guidance in communicating binary capacity.

I expect that no one will object to my addition; it seems rather benign and objective to me, the purpose being to point editors to Wikipedia’s style guide for more information since not every editor is familiar with the inner workings and resources as are those engaged in this discussion. Greg L (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg is waging a war against all things to do with binary prefixes. Quote: "I seen it before. It looks like a hunk of pure garbage, all the way from the small things to the big things. Kids trying to be futuristic." [1]

And I proudly stand behind that truth. Thank you for more widely publicizing it. And thanks for demonstrating that since your persuasive arguments aren’t gaining much traction with the rest of the community, you seem compelled to attempt to fight your battle by engaging in personal attacks. That was the best you could do??
And, since *facts* matter (even on this God-forsaken talk page), I didn’t make that comment on my talk page in regards to, as you say, all things to do with binary prefixes, I was referring quite specifically to Wikipedia’s “Binary prefix” article, which has long been hijacked by certain elements and is beyond redemption. No admin on the planet could reign in behavior over there. Fortunately, half-way knowledgeable readers can recognize it for what it is, take various bits with a grain of salt, and continue with their research to get the real story. Greg L (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The only tendentious editors here are from the destroy IEC crowd.--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am most definitely NOT from the "destroy IEC crowd". You need to separate the two questions "are the IEC prefixes a good idea?" and "should IEC prefixes be used routinely on Wikipedia, given that they are not at all in common use?" Jeh (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the only relevant question here, "are the use of IEC prefixes in this section of this article appropriate?" BTW, I think the answers to yr two questions are YES and NO, but that still doesn't answer my question. Tom94022 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The RfC has been invalidated due to extreme canvassing

IEC prefixes and WP:MOSNUM

Per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Quantities_of_bytes_and_bits: One of the exceptions for binary prefixes is:

" in articles specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes. "

This table compares SI and binary prefixes. That counts as "explicitly discussing" it. Saying that 1000 TB = 931 TB is just confusing. For the purpose of this table, it makes much more sense to use binary prefixes for comparison purposes: 1000 TB = 931 TiB

Also, some editors are under the mistaken impression that no one uses IEC prefixes, ergo they are not worth mentioning. Here is a list of all the software using IEC prefixes: Binary_prefix#Software and Timeline_of_binary_prefixes#2000s The second most popular OS: Mac OSX defines SI units properly. (1GB = 1000000000 bytes) The entire linux kernel use the IEC standard. Is it really so terrible to have a table comparing them in this article?

To the guy that keeps changing IPs to edit the table, yes WP:MOSNUM does say that. I have directly quoted it. If you can't refute my point on this talk page, then you don't get to continually revert. --RaptorHunter (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is about hard drives not IEC prefixes so that exception in MOSNUM does not apply. The table is to compare kilobyte with numbers of bytes. The consensus on Wikipedia is to not use IEC. WP:MOSNUM says do not use this disambiguation. According to MOSNUM it makes more sense to numbers and not use IEC. Why are you editing against that consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.169 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked for feedback on WT:MOSNUM. Now we can wait to see if the claimed exception applies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.155 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of the table...is lost...if it doesn't show the binary prefixes! Using 6 different IPs in 30 minutes is not usual behavior for a contributor. Assuming it's the same person and that all of Singapore hasn't develped a grudge against the IEC at the same time. Referring the multi-IP to the Manual of Style, Numbers, Quantities of Bits and BYtes, doesn't seem to be sinking in as the IP is misquoting the version we can read. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This ISP uses a shared HTTP proxy for all HTTP requests, that explains the range of IPs changing. I cannot turn off this feature because it is part of the network setup at the ISP. Nothing suspicious there. The point of the table is not lost since it uses the WP:MOSNUM disambiguation method of using the number of bytes. MOSNUM says IEC must not be used. I am asking you both instead of editing against consensus and reverting my changes I am asking you both to leave those changes there and wait for feedback from the MOSNUM talk page where people who know about MOSNUM will be able to tell us is IEC is allowed to be used or not. I think it is not allowed to be used and that is why I think my edits have consensus and improve the article. I ask you both, will you accept the consensus of MOSNUM? 220.255.2.81 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I encourage you to create an account so we can leave messages to each other more easily. Please see Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account?--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The manual of style explicitly says...oh to heck with it. Off to ANI for a rangeblock request....--Wtshymanski (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute, I have protected the page for a day. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is just one editor who keep hoping IPs so he can edit the table. We already have consensus from the username editors that a table comparing binary prefixes to SI prefixes should use both for clarity. This clearly falls under the exception of Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Quantities_of_bytes_and_bits, quoted above. I hope that the editor who keeps hoping IPs will grow tired of this game by the time the page protection expires.--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted. Hopefully the extra day will bring a clear consensus involving uninvolved editors as well. Favonian (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that this is an appropriate use of IEC Binary Prefixes. Tom94022 (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I also agree. It is Just Plain Wrong to have 1000 TB and 931 TB in the same row of the same table representing the same amount, regardless of what WP:MOSNUM says. Jeh (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an appropriate and useful application of IEC prefixes, per WP:COMMON, and arguments by Wtshymanski, RaptorHunter, and Jeh. I believe the IP editor means well, but an inflexible application of the guideline WP:MOSNUM leads in this case to the logical absurdity of saying that 1 TB is equivalent to 0.9095 TB, using exactly the same unit of measurement. It should be obvious that any guideline cannot possibly cover all conceivable circumstances, and this use does seem to fall within the spirit of the exemption noted there and above. The argument that using both prefixes improves clarity seems to be the best for our readers. Although I have edited this article in the past, I'm uninvolved in this particular edit war or issue. Good call on the page protection. — Becksguy (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that WP:MOSNUM proclaims itself to be a guideline, which is a different thing from policy. And it even says at the very top: "Use common sense in applying [this guideline]; it will have occasional exceptions." This looks like one of them. Even if there was no credible argument that the exceptions in the WP:COMPUNITS section applied here (and there is), there's certainly credible argument that the global "escape clause" applies. Jeh (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think this is an appropriate use of IEC prefixes for a few reasons.
1. Is the column of extra values needed? I think not because there are already two columns of values to disambiguate, one in the decimal sense and one in the binary sense. It looks overly messy to include fractional values with the IEC prefix.
2. As far as I know there have been no instances of hard drive manufacturers using IEC prefixes and certainly none cited for the use in the table so it is against WP:OR and WP:NPOV to try to make it look like they are used for this topic. Since the sources for this topic do not use IEC prefixes then this article should not do so especially since WP:MOSNUM gives alternatives.
3. Even assuming the extra column of values is needed with the fractional values the question then becomes one of how to write these values and on this WP:MOSNUM is clear where it says "Disambiguation should be shown in bytes or bits, with clear indication of whether in binary or decimal base." There are some exceptions "when the article is on a topic where the majority of cited sources use the IEC prefixes" but this is not relevant since the sources do not use IEC prefixes. Or "when directly quoting a source that uses the IEC prefixes" again this is not relevant for the same reason. Lastly there is "in articles specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes" which does not apply because this this article is not specifically about or explicitly discussing IEC prefixes.
Instead the table can be edited in this way which makes it smaller and easier to read as well as following the guidelines.

SI prefixes (hard drive)	Decimal equivalent	In the binary sense
1 TB (Terabyte)	1 * 1000⁴ B	0.9095 * 1024⁴ B
1000 GB (Gigabyte)	1000 * 1000³ B	931.3 * 1024³ B
1,000,000 MB (Megabyte)	1,000,000 * 1000² B	953,674.3 * 1024² B
1,000,000,000 kB (Kilobyte)	1,000,000,000 * 1000 B	976,562,500 * 1024 B
1,000,000,000,000 B (byte)	-	-

As everyone can see the table still makes it clear what numbers are in the binary or decimal sense. So as you can all see when written like this it is superfluous to include the third column. Keep in mind the text in WP:MOSNUM regarding IEC prefixes was written to give guidance on how to reduce the use of IEC prefixes to places where it is strictly necessary to use them. In this case it is obviously not necessary. It follows WP:OR and WP:NPOV by specifically not including any conversions to IEC prefixes. It follows WP:MOSNUM by using powers.
Now then, does anyone have any disagreements about using that edited table? Glider87 (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

For some strange reason you are doing everything in your power to avoid using these binary prefixes. You even changed the words binary prefix to the very strange "in the binary sense". Now how is that vague description better than using the actual term. "in the binary sense" is nothing more than a euphemism for binary prefix.

Furthermore, your argument that HDD manufacture's do not use binary prefixes is invalid here. The table is comparing how the OS measures space to how the hard drive manufacturer's measure space.

It's as if some Wikipedia editor's want to do everything they can to censor any Byte measurement that has a little "i" in it. The "i" is accepted by an international standard's body. It's used any many tools, open source programs and websites. It adds clarity to the article when distinguishing SI versus binary units. I know the computer industry has been using MB and GB to refer to non-SI units of data for a long time now. That doesn't make it correct. The SI units have existed long before the computer age and it seems that finally computer software is catching up to the fact that they have been doing it wrong for all this time. Accept it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It does no good to waste one single line of this article to using units of measure (gibibytes) when such units and terminology are not used by one single computer manufacturer in any materials directed to their customer base—not in their advertising, brochures, packaging, or instruction manuals. Because of this fact, no computer-related magazines that are directed to a general-interest readership use such terminology. It is not the proper role of Wikipedia to try to lead the world by using such language here in hopes the rest of the world will see how way-cool and logical the IEC prefixes are; we follow the way the real world works. Greg L (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

So if it doesn't appear in a magazine it must not exist? Here is a nice list of a whole bunch of software that all uses binary prefixes: Binary_prefix#Software. Binary prefixes are here. Get used to it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not say "if it doesn't appear in a magazine it must not exist". The consensus is that if it is not how the real world works then Wikipedia does not report it. Binary prefixes are not commonly used, so theyt are not to be used in this article.Glider87 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

See also Timeline_of_binary_prefixes#2000s. The tide of history is turning against you.--

On the contrary it shows that despite ten years adoption is still low and that it has not turned yet. So it is not up to Wikipedia to try to advocate any change it is up to Wikipedia to report significant points of view in a neutral way. This is another nail in the coffin for using IEC prefixes. Glider87 (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter replying to your comment: The article about binary prefixes uses the phrases "in the decimal sense" and "in the binary sense" so it is not my use, nor is it "very strange" or vague. It is very relevant that HDD manufactures do not use IEC prefixes because to try to use IEC prefixes in an article about hard drives is against WP:NPOV. That is the consensus that was agreed for WP:MOSNUM. As for "is accepted by an international standard's body" WP:MOSNUM says "Wikipedia follows common practice regarding bytes and other data traditionally quantified using binary prefixes" and then says "Despite the IEC's 1998 guideline creating several new binary prefixes". It is not relevant what a "international standard's body" thinks because what is relevant is Wikipedia showing what is in common use. A question for you, keepng in mind Wikipedia follows common practice is it common practice to use IEC prefixes for the subject of hard drives? The answer is, of course not. Another question, has consensus changed to show a common practice of using IEC prefixes? Answer, no of course not. The sources do not use IEC prefixes for this topic so to be neutral this article has to follow that example. Do you have any argument against the proposed table that is not WP:IJDLI? Glider87 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be under the impression that no one is using this or that it's at least not in common usage. I've have posted a link to a long list of people using it in software everyday: Binary_prefix#Software. All the table does is compare to different methods of measuring data. Deal with it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That list is not relevant to this topic. Can you provide a long list of sources for hard drive manufacturers using IEC prefixes? The answer is you have not. Since you have not then IEC prefixes are not to be used in this article since that would be against WP:NPOV WP:OR and WP:SOAP. The edited table I provided above still compares different methods of measuring data and does this without going against WP:NPOV. Glider87 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg yes we do we "follow the way the real world works". Wikipedia is not a soap box for IEC prefixes. Glider87 (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the goal of the table is to contrast correct numbers with how they are displayed by a very commonly used operating system (among other software). And Windows does say e.g. "500 GB", but using "GB" in the binary sense. One solution: in the table proposed above by Glider87, change the "binary sense" column head to "As displayed by Windows and some other software", use the TB or GB notation in that column, and not use it at all elsewhere in the table? That is after all how Windows displays hard drive and file sizes - with SI-like prefixes but used in the binary sense. And it sidesteps the "1000 GB = 931 GB" issue. It does not however address the software that exists that does use IEC prefixes, or SI prefixes in their decimal sense. Do we just pretend that no such software exists? That HD and file sizes are never displayed with either SI prefixes used in the decimal sense, or with IEC prefixes? Jeh (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Another solution is to punt the issue entirely and refer to the Binary prefixes article, which no one seems to have a major problem with (at least not yet). Jeh (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to consider what most software uses in the real world and not what a minority of software uses. In this case this article is not about the minute details specifically about IEC prefixes used by some software. That kind of topic is already discussed in the binary prefix article. This article is not on the same subject and is not meant to rehash detailed information in binary prefix. This article is a level or two removed from such minute details. Reference WP:UNDUE and ask is it relevant to this article that a minority of software uses IEC prefixes or is it relevant that the majority of software does not use IEC prefixes. So I think for this article it is best not to use IEC prefixes and instead adopt a neutral disambiguation advocated by WP:MOSNUM. This stance is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Remove the table completely and just link to binary prefixes would be an alternative. Glider87 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote in my 01:25, 8 April 2011 post, Glider87? Yes, I agree with you 100%. You are correct and this debate is moot. This was settled a long time ago and it’s final. See WT:MOSNUM#Avoiding confusing IEC prefixes. This attempt to use the IEC prefixes in a computer-related article is precisely what MOSNUM’s guidelines are intended to prevent. There isn’t a snowball’s chance in h-e-double hockey sticks that there would ever be a consensus to allow the IEC prefixes to be used in this fashion. The admin might as well unlock the article for this isn’t a close call and the argument that the IEC prefixes can be brought back is without any foundation.

To RaptorHunter: Please take two readings of Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008) and call me in the morning if you still don’t *get it*. We don’t use the IEC prefixes like you are trying to do because it doesn’t matter if they are way-cool. The consensus after long debate was that they are clearly unfamiliar with our readership and will not be used on Wikipedia unless the article is squarely on the issue of discussing the units of measure—not by merely using them in a table.

User:Jeh offers a perfectly satisfactory solution to this, none of which relies upon using a stuttering unit of measure (gibibytes) that precious too few readers have ever heard of. Greg L (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the assumption that because you and Glider have written so much more text that anyone else, that you have a consensus here. You do not. Even if we all don't have the ability to vomit text forth like some other editors here, the fact remains that you don't have a consensus. It's a hotly debated issue.

Futhermore, I don't want IEC prefixes because they are "way cool". In fact I think they sound kind of stupid. (kibibyte?) They need to stay because they clarify the difference between SI units and computer units. The software industry has been misappropriating SI prefixes to mean something they don't for decades. The ideal solution of course would be for software makers to actually use SI prefixes correctly, just like hard drive manufactures are now. 1 GB = 1 billion bytes and 1 MB = 1 million bytes. Then we can forget about the kibibytes.--RaptorHunter (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is defined "by the quality of the arguments posted" and good quality arguments are those that cite relevant policy and guidelines and also cite existing consensus. Consensus is not defined by a small group of editors appearing at a certain point in time. Existing consensus in the archive that Greg posted says not to use IEC prefixes because of many good reasons which was discussed for a long period of time by many editors. You have not posted anything that refutes those very good reasons in the archive or the very good reasons I have posted here on this talk page. What you have written looks a lot like WP:IJDLI which is a "weak and feeble an argument" and "hold little to no water at Wikipedia". Glider87 (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if you had actually read any of my arguments (which appear at the top of this scetion), then you would know that I am not arguing that WP:MOSNUM ought to be repealed. I am simply stating that the rules provide a clear exception in this one case because the table is explicitly discussing the difference between binary and SI prefixes.--RaptorHunter (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don’t agree with you at all and find your arguments unconvincing. MOSNUM’s guidelines are clear on this and your continuing to harp on it and say that up is down is merely tendentious. That this article had to be locked down because of this shows that this is bordering on disruptive. Sorry. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter I have read your arguments and they are refuted by the arguments I just posted. That is to say the exception you cite is not valid given the consensus found in WP:MOSNUM WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE WP:IJDLI and WP:SOAP. Glider87 (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Greg L's stance. Let's avoid units that are so far from common usage as to be derisible. If there must be a note to another article that explains a tiny issue, well perhaps; but it isn't the job of this article to "clarify the difference between SI units and computer units". GFHandel. 02:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

So given that RaptorHunter's arguments have been refuted. I agree with Jeh that we should "punt the issue entirely" and refer to the Binary prefixes article. Remove the "Following are the several ways of reporting one Terabyte." and the table. Instead replace the text "some operating system utilities" with some operating system utilities. That should solve the issues. Anyone have any problems with that? Glider87 (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone but you and Greg has a problem with that. You are attempting to censor the existence of a unit recommended from an international standards body. We are not trying to force it on every article in the pedia. Just explain the difference with a handy chart.--RaptorHunter (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The chart makes more sense without IEC prefixes because the WP:MOSNUM consensus says IEC prefixes "are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers". I am not attempting to censor anything. I am attempting to find the middle ground by agreeing with Jeh that the issue should be punted to the relevant article. It helps to organise and simplify this article and delegate the superfluous information to the text already in the other article. Glider87 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter, quoting you: You are attempting to censor the existence of a unit recommended from an international standards body. “Censored” “Banned”. “Matter of style”. Call it what you will. That argument was the very foundation of the IEC-prefix proponents over on MOSNUM when this issue was settled. Ultimately, that argument was rejected by a consensus. So you are re-raising arguments that were carefully considered and soundly dismissed by the community. Do you understand this point? Or do you understand that this is a sad fact but think that by convincing Glider87 and me you can turn MOSNUM on its ear?
The BIPM (the SI gods) say that a space must be used between the numeric value and the unit symbol. Thus, it is supposed to be 75 % and not the 75% the rest of the world (including Wikipedia) uses. It matters not that there is a standard from a widely respected organization saying we are supposed to do otherwise. If you want to debate the issue here, then—by definition—an outcome per your wishes on this article will be contrary to MOSNUM. So if you want to change MOSNUM, go argue your point there and see how far you get. Sorry. Greg L (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again: I am not arguing that WP:MOSNUM ought to be repealed. I am simply stating that the rules provide a clear exception in this one case because the table is explicitly discussing the difference between binary and SI prefixes.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Splendid. Well then, the crux of the dispute is what MOSNUM means. So this discussion clearly belongs there then. Your argument that you may merely mention the units in a table so that means they are de facto “being discussed directly” is totally absurd and everyone else at MOSNUM would be able to see that.
Forgive me, but your manner of posting here and your clear intent reminds me of Thunderbird, who would be intimately familiar with all the goings-on at MOSNUM back in the day and would know full well what MOSNUM currently means. By any chance, are you the editor who was behind the old Thunderbird of MOSNUM fame account? Please flatly declare that you did not operate that account so that no Check User will need to be performed anytime soon. Greg L (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter, going back and editing [7] old comments that have already been replied to (and also refuted) is generally frowned upon because it disrupts the ebb and flow of the discussion. Now then as explained a couple of times already the exception you cite does not allow what you claim in this particular topic. The conclusion formed by the WP:MOSNUM consensus is that IEC prefixes are not to be used in this article. The alternative, Jeh proposed and I just fleshed out, is to punt the entire detail to the existing text in another article. Glider87 (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't change my post. I appended to it, to clear up some confusion. It's an important fact that: The second most popular OS: Mac OSX defines SI units properly. (1GB = 1000000000 bytes) and that The entire linux kernel use the IEC standard.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You added text claiming "Also, some editors are under the mistaken impression that no one uses IEC prefixes" which misrepresents the ebb and flow of the discussion. It also misrepresents the argument I actually posted further on down the talk page. Now back on topic, since your arguments are refuted what is left is the proposed change to remove the table and modify the article text to include a link to another article. Glider87 (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You've refuted nothing. Just because you and your buddy Greg got together and decided everything I said is wrong doesn't make it so.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Claiming that your arguments have not been refuted when they have been shown to be refuted by the WP:MOSNUM consensus is not a strong argument, see WP:IJDLI for the reasons why. Can you refute the stronger arguments I've presented above? Glider87 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there’s your problem. Two other editors disagree with you so you must be right! (Niiiiice) Try arguing this on WT:MOSNUM and see how far you get with your logic about what MOSNUM prescribes and proscribes. Slam dunk – adios muchachos. Greg L (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have explained myself time and time again refuting everyone of your arguments. Everyone else, but you two and an ip-hopping vandal agree with me. Goodnight everyone.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You have not refuted that arguments I posted, you have not tackled them at all except to restate the incorrect assumption about the MOSNUM exception which is basically nothing more than "I just don't like it" which is a weak argument. The clarification from MOSNUM is that your interpretation of MOSNUM is incorrect. How about you ask other editors involved in the MOSNUM consensus if your assumption is correct? I bet you they will say roughly the same as Greg and myself have been saying. Glider87 (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is RaptorHunter for the exception in MOSNUM to be used you have to first show how the IEC prefixes are being discussed by the reliable sources relevant to the article not by you discussing IEC related text. Your desire to discuss or add IEC prefixes in the article is not good enough to use the exception. You need to support what you want to put in the article with reliable sources. Unfortunately you are not a reliable source (neither am I by the way). That is one reason why your interpreation of MOSNUM is incorrect. Glider87 (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I salute my fellow editors. Not since my days reading USENET have I seen so much effort expended on such a...recondite...topic. With any luck this will end up with WQA or ANI or even a user ban. We should at least nominate this for WP:LAME. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

When the article is unlocked I will add a reliable source to the first sentence of Capacity measurements. The second sentence has a reliable source. Together they make this section about the differences between a drive's claimed capacity and its capacity as reported by most operating systems and IMO makes this section about IEC binary prefixes (they have been introduced and are being used to eliminate this confusion). I expect that Glider87 and Greg L will disagree but I think the consensus is that usage here is a valid exception. Tom94022 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the quote:

Drive displays a smaller capacity than the indicated size on the drive label

Decimal vs. Binary:
For simplicity and consistency, hard drive manufacturers define a megabyte as 1,000,000 bytes and a gigabyte as 1,000,000,000 bytes. This is a decimal (base 10) measurement and is the industry standard. However, certain system BIOSs, FDISK and Windows define a megabyte as 1,048,576 bytes and a gigabyte as 1,073,741,824 bytes. Mac systems also use these values. These are binary (base 2) measurements.

Western Digital

Tom94022 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not true of MacOS X any more. They are now using SI prefixes. Jeh (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I will truncate appropriately. Tom94022 (talk)

BTW, when u say they are now using SI prefixes do u mean they report drive and file usage in a decimal sense or using IEC binary prefixes for memory or ??? Tom94022 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

They report that a 1GB file = 1000000000 bytes.--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is against using IEC prefixes because the are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers. The table from Glider87 shows how it is clear without using IEC prefixes. You cannot say they are using IEC prefixes unless they specifically use -bi or -iB. MacOS X is not using IEC prefixes. What does have consensus is Jeh's proposal to remove the content and link instead. 220.255.2.93 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the same ip-hopper from yesterday that forced the page lockdown. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Users_in_the_range_220.255.2.XXX--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact my ISP has a dynamic HTTP proxy does not make my point less valid. The fact is the consensus is against using IEC prefixes because that is what is said [8] [9] [10]. Greg confirms this consensus and he was one of the people involved in building that consensus. If you disagree with what you think MOSNUM means then as Greg said this becomes an issue for MOSNUM to debate not this article talk page. I already asked for feedback on WT:MOSNUM. The feedback from Greg is that consensus is against what you say MOSNUM means. The proposal from Jeh to remove the content and link has consensus and it makes sense. As GFHandle says it isn't the job of this article to clarify the difference between SI units and computer units. At the very least the IEC prefixes should be removed from the table and any disambiguation or comparison of sizes should only use byte values. RaptorHunter or Tom94022 do you have any argument that refutes the facts as described above? 220.255.2.72 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I support Tom's RS addition to the section, together with the IEC UoM (Units of Measure) version of the table. I oppose Glider87's version of the table. Despite relabeling the secondary column as "In a binary sense", it's still IEC's binary UoM without the actual UoM terms, and in scientific notation that's not intuitive for the average reader. The header even links there. — Becksguy (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No WP:MOSNUM says that using to disambiguate numbers is to be used instead of IEC because IEC is not familiar. So using IEC is not intuitive for the average reader. Even if a number is in the binary sense MOSNUM says to use numbers not the IEC prefixes. Why are you going against that consensus? 220.255.2.81 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if something uses a binary number of bytes it still has to be disambiguated using numbers not IEC prefixes. That is what WP:MOSNUM says. That is consensus. Saying that you support something that is against consensus without giving a good reason does not change that consensus. Consensus is not a bunch of editors turning up and saying they like something without reason. Consensus is made of stronger ideas than that. 220.255.2.77 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please Create an account, so we know who is posting what messages. It will make these discussions much easier.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't need an account to point out mistakes that have been made. Do you any any argument that refutes the facts and consensus as described above? 220.255.2.46 (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If you actually cared to read, what I wrote. You would see that I have laid out my arguments over and over again. Also, when you IP constantly changes, it looks like the messages are coming from different people. It also makes it impossible to leave messages on your talk page. This is very abnormal behavior. Please Create an account. It's free, quick and easy.--RaptorHunter (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

But as discovered the arguments you made are not correct. Do you have any new argument to make that refutes the facts and consensus above? 220.255.2.47 (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The messages you left on the user talk page were false accusations of vandalism. If false accusation are all you have to write on a talk page then it is better that you do not write at all. 220.255.2.62 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We won’t have the standard handful of IEC fanatics violating the clear intent of MOSNUM. The consensus finding was that the IEC prefixes are unfamiliar to readership because not one single manufacturer of personal computers when communicating with their customer base uses such terminology. Consequently, no general-interest computer magazine uses such terminology to describe capacity—that is, unless it is a special article talking about the IEC’s proposal that colossally failed to catch on in the real world. The normal routine, when faced with communicating drive capacity, merely state something like “2 terabytes” and add an asterisk leading to a footnote that “1 terabyte equals 1,000,000,000,000 bytes.” MOSNUM provides guidance on how to do this. It’s not difficult. Any proponent of the IEC prefixes who participated in those past MOSNUM discussions and who now attempts to exploit this flare-up by trying to use measures that are entirely unfamiliar to our readership in contravention of the guidelines will end up the subject of an ANI because they know better and are just being tendentious and disruptive. That applies to Tom94022 and to Thunderbird (a.ka. RaptorHunter, I suspect). Greg L (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be so paranoid as to assume that every user that disagree with you must be a sockpuppet. Futhermore your threat to use checkuser against me [11], is in clear violation of the Check user policy which forbids a "threat against another editor in a content dispute."--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Third time of asking: Do you have any new argument to make that refutes the facts and consensus above? 220.255.2.46 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made an edit that has consensus, this removes the table and makes a reference to binary prefixes where the difference is explained in more detail. RaptorHunter and others do not keep on reverting to insert IEC prefixes because as GFHandel said it isn't the job of this article to clarify the difference between SI units and computer units. 220.255.2.79 (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not portray your edits as somehow more important ("has consensus") than others. WP:MOSNUM is a guideline and is subservient to the actual consensus here. If someone would like to provide a brief explanation of what is wrong with the current article without posturing, please do so. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that some editors want to use this article to discuss IEC prefixes and that is not within the scope of this article. 220.255.2.40 (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense. If the IEC prefixes are not banned from Wikipedia, this is the one article that is entitled to use them. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The IEC prefixes are banned from Wikipedia for general articles. Only those articles that specifically discuss them are allowed to use them. See WP:MOSNUM for the reasons why. This is a general article because the scope of this article does not specifically cover IEC prefixes. 220.255.2.22 (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
If you would not make so many posts here, you would not make so many errors. A guideline cannot "ban" anything. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
You used the word "banned". WP:MOSNUM says "The IEC prefixes are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers so are generally not to be used" and so on. The guideline does give very good reasons not to use them. The consensus talks leading up to that guideline give even more good reasons. To use them here on this page can you give one good reason that is better than the consensus talks? As it says on WP:MOSNUM "Consistent standards make articles easier to read, write, and edit." I ask you why do you want to make this article depart from consistent standards and make the article harder to read, write and edit? 220.255.2.20 (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have just made Wtshymanski and RaptorHunter aware of the three revert rule. I hope this encourages edits within the consensus formed and to not add IEC prefixes or the table back again unless a clear consensus has been formed on this talk page. 220.255.2.28 (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no "consensus formed" as we are in an ongoing process of developing consensus here on the talk page as you noted. Although it appears to me that consensus is leaning toward inclusion of the IEC units. Reverting from the protected version of the table was just done without consensus and should be restored. — Becksguy (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

@ User:Greg L: Please try to avoid comments like "standard handful of IEC fanatics". Even if it is true (which I don't believe), it doesn't help to develop consensus here, as it tends to put the focus on the contributors rather than on the content. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus to not use IEC prefixes is on WP:MOSNUM and that consensus applies as a basis to all relevant articles. I disagree that consensus leans towards using IEC prefixes on this talk page those who want to use IEC prefixes have not given a good reason to use them when considering the arguments made for the WP:MOSNUM consensus. Since there has not been a good reason to use them then the consensus formed in WP:MOSNUM which says to not use them takes priority. 220.255.2.76 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe this is still going. Here are some reasons for not including the IEC prefixes in this article:

They are not recognised by the average readership of WP.
They serve to make the article more complex, and we should be aiming to explain things as simply as possible.
Try walking into your local computer store and asking for a 500 gibibyte hard-disk drive. The guy will stare at you until you come back to reality.
Just because a unit can be used in an article doesn't mean it has to be.
Their use here is simply elitist box-ticking—not because they deepen the understanding of the topic.
It is not up to this article to provide conversion factors between different units. The most commonly used unit is sufficient for the average reader to get their bearing/scale.
There has been previous discussions on the use of the IEC units, and the consensus has been not to use them.
I've worked in the IT industry for quite a while now, and I've never (that's right, never) come across the use of a single one of the IEC units. (That's just the opinion of one expert witness in case one was necessary.)
If some mention need be made of such irrelevant terms, a footnote is more than sufficient.

The article is fine without mention of the terms. Those wanting to include the terms are doing so simply because they can, not because there is any compelling reason to do so. How about moving on to tackle the 100-kibi more important issues needing attention on WP? GFHandel. 06:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed GFHandel, so much for the claims of consensus being for IEC prefixes. The problem is ask someone who wants to use IEC prefixes why they was to be inconsistent with other articles or the guideline. Then there is no reason given except "I want to" and here at Wikipedia that is not a good enough reason to add content because it goes against WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Johnuniq asked for a summary of what was wrong with the article before, this is why. 220.255.2.87 (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments on MOSNUM and CONSENSUS My arguments for including IEC units, or for rewriting that part of the section, apart from this posting, are separate, as this is just about consensus. After a rereading of the internal references, I have these comments on the the relationship of MOSNUM and the ongoing consensus discussion on this talk page:

WP:MOSNUM is a guideline, not policy.
In the hatnote at the top of the MOSNUM page, it says: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." and links to WP:COMMON and to WP:IAR.
WP:COMMON says in part: "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution."
WP:COMPUNITS, the section of MOSNUM that specifically deals with computer related units of measurements says in part: "Specify if the binary or decimal meanings of K, M, G, etc. are intended as the primary meaning.". The table at question uses the SI units as primary, with the IEC units as secondary, therefore it's clearly permitted in the guideline.
The archived discussion, referenced in MOSNUM, compete rewrite of UoM, is almost three years old. The last three years is a blink of the eye relative to the field of Elizabethan literature, for example, but it's generations relative to computer technology.
That archived discussion had about a dozen participants, not an atypical number when compared to the number of participants in AfDs. How can a claim be made that an extremely small subset of the community can set up a guideline for the entire community, when it can take that number of people just to delete or keep one single article. That is not a meaningful or reasonable community wide consensus.
Regardless of how much weight one places on the discussion by a group of twelve editors from three years ago, consensus can change, per WP:CCC.

Conclusion: The subject table with IEC units in a secondary position does not violate WP:MOSNUM, per WP:COMPUNITS and WP:COMMON. — Becksguy (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No that is not the conclusion because using IEC prefixes in the secondary position still violates WP:MOSNUM. The correct method to disambiguate is to use numbers not any prefixes. Claiming MOSNUM says it is "clearly permitted in the guideline" to use IEC prefixes in the secondary position is wrong. It does not allow that at all. If you don't believe me then ask someone at WP:MOSNUM. Oh wait, that has already been done, the conclusion is not to use IEC prefixes. Wanting to use IEC prefixes here also violates WP:COMMON because common sense tells anyone that using prefixes that are not familiar and "have seen little use by the press or the computing industry" is not good for any article. In summary Becksguy your claims about what WP:MOSNUM allows are wrong. 220.255.2.87 (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see anything on this page that you have written which is correct. It is obvious to anyone with knowledge of standard operating procedures here that IEC prefixes are not "banned", so this article is entitled to use them if there is a reason to do so. I assume (per AGF) that you are simply misunderstanding what a guideline is, despite its clear "generally followed" wording, but there is nothing at MOSNUM or its voluminous discussion pages which enforces usage here. Sure, it will be taken into account, and we get it: you don't want IEC prefixes. Indeed I would be speaking up against them too if anyone were suggesting that all the disk sizes be quoted in gibis or other gobbledygook, but that is not the topic of discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I woke up this morning to a couple of emails asking to comment on this issue because I was one of the editors who worked on the original guideline text. As someone who worked on it for so long I have a long memory and unique knowledge of the intention behind the text which is all archived in the 16 or so binary prefix talk archives. It is correct to say IEC prefixes are in effect "banned" for this article. They are "generally not to be used" on Wikipedia and this also applies to the table that RaptorHunter wants to include in the article. The guideline clause which does allow IEC prefixes in an article does not apply to this article because it is not "specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes". Accordingly the table should use "bytes or bits, with clear indication of whether in binary or decimal base". I prefer the style "64 × 1024² bytes" but any notation style can be used as long as IEC prefixes are not used. I have not read anything in this talk page that convinced me that there should be a special case for using IEC prefixes in this article. There is no value to using IEC prefixes in this article. To Becksguy and some others on this talk page who have made claims about the guideline: Speaking personally from the point of view of someone who put a lot of effort into the guideline over several years I find it alarming how so many incorrect conclusions can be made about the guideline text. At the time of writing we all thought it was very clear IEC prefixes are not to be used except in the most rare situations. Let me be clear, this article is not one of those rare situations so to claim the guideline allows IEC prefixes in this article is utterly wrong. Fnag aton 09:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the policy to back your opinions? I actually don't particularly care about the table under discussion, and in general I fully accept the idea that MOS is wonderful, but the policy misinformation and advocacy against this minor usage are irritating. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. One relevant policy is WP:CON which describes the way consensus is reached. Applying that to WP:MOSNUM it can be seen from the archives how many editors took part in the debate over several years to form the consensus. Sanctions can be applied to editors who refuse to accept consensus (WP:disruptive editing). Another relevant policy is WP:NPOV because as explained in the talk archive an editor's personal desire to use IEC prefixes (when they are very obviously not familiar to the average Wikipedia reader) is not a neutral point of view, it is a biased point of view. From reading this talk archive what I see are a couple of editors who have a desire to use IEC prefixes for the table when others have already proposed alternatives (power notation style) that are not biased towards either the old or new prefix systems. Obviously the least biased system is more aligned to the goals of WP:NPOV which is why power notation style should be used to replace the IEC prefixes. There are a couple of other policies that are relevant and these are also explained in the talk archives. The general thrust of the argument is that while the IEC prefixes are not widely used (and they are still not, this is a fact); Then any attempt to force them to be used in general articles (of which this is one example) against the WP:MOSNUM consensus is in violation of WP:NPOV policy and can be seen as disruptive editing behaviour. Fnag aton 12:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As I explained above, the table does not violate WP:MOSNUM because it is explicitly discussing the prefixes. The consensus of editors on this talk page agrees with my interpertation of the rules. In fact it is you who are being disruptive by reverting against the consensus of this talk page.--RaptorHunter (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Such an assertion is obviously not in the slightest bit true. The IEC prefixes aren’t being discussed, they’re being used to describe the capacity of hard drive capacities. Wikipedia always follows the practices of most reliable sources directed to a general-interest readership. Do we see “GiB” generally being used by computer manufacturers to describe hard drive capacities to their consumer base and other general-interest readerships? So why would Wikipedia do so then? Because we… are way cool and forward thinking? Your arguments are fallacious. You, RaptorHunter don’t have to concede on this point; we can simply have a nice quick RFC here to see if the IEC prefixes are “specifically about or explicitly discussed”as MOSNUM requires (as is done on Megabyte) or if it is the obvious reality: using them in an “Oh… didn’cha know?”-fashion to describe capacity.

You can save your wind arguing that up is down; a simple RFC here will settle the issue. Enjoy… Greg L (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter as I explained above your interpretation of the rules is utterly wrong. I say this as someone with a lot of experience on MOSNUM and as someone who helped to write the rules that you mention. The consensus of editors on this page does not agree with you. I do not know how you can possibly think I am "being disruptive by reverting" because as of right now I have not recently reverted any changes on the article so I cannot be editing against consensus. Your edit was reverted not by me and with the comment "there is no consensus for your change; there are (at the very least) credible arguments against it". Obviously you are wrong and consensus is against your edit. Fnag aton 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Caution - I strongly suggest that everyone stop reverting. It's a resurgence of the edit war and the article is going to get locked down again, probably longer this time, and maybe some editors will be blocked. Edit wars are disruptive, regardless. — Becksguy (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter:

Point 1: WP:MOSNUM allows the use of IEC prefixes where they themselves are, if not the primary topic of discussion, at least a significant topic. But this article is not about IEC prefixes. The section in question is not about IEC prefixes. It is about the meanings of true SI prefixes as used by hard drive makers, compared to identical-looking prefixes with binary meanings ("customary binary prefixes", per Binary prefixes) as used by operating systems and by many other programs to show hard drive capacities. It is attempting to explain the discrepancy between these two measurements. And neither of those measurements (at least as seen by the vast majority of computer users) uses IEC prefixes. There is therefore no justification for their use here under the "specifically about or explicitly discussing" provision.
Point 1A: I agree that if the IEC prefixes were widely recognized, used, and understood, then they'd be appropriate to use in this context. Then they would be an aid to understanding the discrepancy. But that is not the case.
Point 1B: And if the IEC prefixes were widely recognized, used, and understood, then MOSNUM wouldn't say what it says about them and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. In fact, we might not have any apparent discrepancies to explain. But in the meantime, WP is supposed to document the status quo, not promote change.
Point 2: The fact that IEC prefixes were added to this little table (or even the paragraphs surrounding the table) does not provide an "out" for the previous point. That would be self-referential, using the disputed usage as justification for itself. (And I think claims in that direction border on the ludicrous.) To satisfy MOSNUM's requirement of "specifically about or explicitly discussing" requires context other than the usage in question.
Point 3: MOSNUM specifically calls out two other cases where IEC prefixes may be used: Where a majority of the references cited in the article use them, or (of course) when directly quoting a source that uses them. The usage under discussion here does not meet those requirements either. The "sources" here would be operating system displays and hard drive makers' marketing. Except for one Linux distribution (that has literally about 1% market share) and perhaps a double handful of applications and utilities, none of the above use IEC prefixes, so they cannot be used as a "source" that supports their usage here. So why include the IEC prefixes in the table? To do so does not help explain anything; rather it adds a point that needs further explanation!
Point 3A: Mac OS is also not using IEC prefixes for displays of e.g. memory sizes, not that that would be relevant to this article anyway.
Point 4: It is true that the lede at WP:MOSNUM allows for exceptions to the whole page, citing the "guideline" nature of the page as opposed to "policy." But I don't think that gives excuse to ignore the guideline just because some editor wants to. In my opinion, given the strong position at WP:MOSNUM against the general use of IEC prefixes, a compelling reason to use IEC prefixes must exist to properly invoke this very nonspecific "exceptions clause." Since the section can say everything it needs to say without using IEC prefixes, such reason does not exist here.
Point 5: I still don't think "1000 GB" and "931 GB" should appear in the same table row to represent the same number, at least not as the table is (was) annotated. But that issue can be fixed other ways (better annotations). Fact is, HD boxes do say "1000 GB" and the OS will say "931 GB" for the same drive, and that needs to be explained. I think the answer is not binary prefixes, but better annotations. In fact, I'm creating a differently-formatted table to put in the Binary prefixes article specifically to address this issue.

Please note that I am not at all an opponent of the IEC prefixes. In the past, in fact, I argued against the adoption of MOSNUM's current stance on this topic. Since then, though, I have realized that MOSNUM's position is the correct one for Wikipedia, given IEC prefixes' almost complete lack of adoption in the real world. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to promote what some editors think are good ideas; it is the job of an encyclopedia to document information that exists in reliable sources. Yes, exceptions to MOSNUM are permitted, but such exceptions must have justification and consensus. I haven't seen any compelling justification for an exception here, and there clearly is a lack of consensus in that direction. The proper action is therefore to comply with MOSNUM. (p.s.: Yes, I opined otherwise previously. After further thought, I've concluded that I was wrong.) Jeh (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes

With regard to the table here in “Hard disk drive”, is the use of the IEC binary measures and their symbols such as GiB “specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes” as is required by MOSNUM:Quantities of bytes and bits, or are they being used to describe the magnitude of binary quantities? Is such use compliant or in violation? If you find it to be in violation of MOSNUM but to still be a sound technical writing practice worthy of exemption from MOSNUM’s guidelines, please elaborate. If you find this use here in this fashion to be compliant with MOSNUM, please elaborate. Greg L (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In violation This isn’t “explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes” as exemplified at Megabyte and Binary prefixes, and is simply using them to describe a binary quantity, which is specifically prohibited by MOSNUM precisely because terminology like “gibibyte (GiB)” isn’t used in the real world (computer manufacturers and computer magazines) when communicating to a general-interest readership. The overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community when the applicable MOSNUM guideline was debated (a three-month-long process) was that the IEC prefixes were unfamiliar to our readership. They still are. Since Wikipedia simply follows the practices of RSs, the use of these units in this fashion is poor technical writing practice and is—not surprisingly—entirely contrary to the guidelines of MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Compliant

Per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Quantities_of_bytes_and_bits: One of the exceptions for binary prefixes is:

" in articles specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes. "

This table compares SI and binary prefixes. That counts as "explicitly discussing" it. Saying that 1000 TB = 931 TB is just confusing. For the purpose of this table, it makes much more sense to use binary prefixes for comparison purposes: 1000 TB = 931 TiB

It has even been suggested that we replace the words binary prefix with in the binary sense, which of course links back to binary prefix. This euphemism is nothing more than obtuse language to avoid talking about binary prefixes. It sounds like little more than a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it This issue has been brought up again and again in the courts and the tech media. The table clarifies for our readers why a 1000 TB hard drive only has 931 TB. It would a shame for wikipedia not to cover it because of the bias of some editors.--RaptorHunter (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

These prefixes are gaining wider acceptance. Anyone that's ever visited the Pirate bay has heard of it. Anyone that uses Ubuntu has heard of it. There's a whole long list of websites, software tools and more that use these prefixes. It's becoming more and more common all the time. Thousands and thousands of people see these prefixes every day. Wikipedia is here too explain what they mean. Please read Binary_prefix#Software and Timeline_of_binary_prefixes#2000s.--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It cannot be compliant when they are still only used in the minority of cases and therefore it is not following the ideas in WP:UNDUE to include them here.Fnag aton 06:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Deceptive

To simply state that binary quantities may be reported as a certain number of GiB is deceptive in that few sources (including operating systems) actually report hard disk capacities using that symbol, especially when one considers that consumers of such information will read the used or unused capacity of a drive much more frequently that the capacity of a new drive, and (so far as I know) operating systems do not use the IEC symbols to report used or unused capacity. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Compliant

The section of the article under dispute is all about the differences between the two usages of prefixes and therefore using the third prefix is in the interest of both avoiding confusion and informing the reader. Tom94022 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Compliant

As it deals explicitly about the difference and confusion created by the ambiguously used prefixes. −Woodstone (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Or, we do as is done everywhere else on Wikipedia to address the dual meaning of “GB”: we write that in some contexts, such as the capacity of RAM, it means 1,073,741,824 bytes (1024³) and in others “GB” means 1,000,000,000 bytes. What is not done is to have Wikipedia expressing these quantities using terminology that is soundly being ignored by the computer industry; that much is part of Technical Writing 101. Our three-year-long experiment trying to be all futuristic and use the terminology here on Wikipedia in hopes that the idea would catch on and everyone will become familiar with the units of measure and the computer industry will follow suit was proven to be a pipe dream by idealistic, wide-eyed futurists. Get with the game plan please. You lost on this a few years ago and it’s a lost cause this time around too. Greg L (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Compliant

I agree with User:Woodstone. Martinvl (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Compliant but not appropriate

It adds to the confusion. In other words, I agree with User:Jc3s5h. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the table could be accompanied by a short paragraph to explain the difference.--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the IEC-advocates could just comply with the clear intent of MOSNUM, which was to relegate IEC prefixes to “articles specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes” such as Megabyte and Binary prefixes and to not use them to describe the magnitude of binary quantities. Your argument that by using them to describe a binary quantity like this amounts to “directly discussing” the units is laughable wikilawyering and isn’t remotely compliant with the widespread will of the community on this issue. Greg L (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me check I have this right: you want to introduce terms that aren't used to describe hard disk drives (which can only serve to confuse the average readership) and then introduce an explanatory paragraph to try and clear up the confusion? Sigh. GFHandel. 21:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So far, that’s Greg L objecting to the use here, as well as Jc3s5h thinking it’s deceptive to use them in the article. And Arthur Rubin agreeing with Jc3s5h and adding that it’s inappropriate to use them. We’ll let this run for a few more days. Greg L (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not Compliant

...because I think "in violation" is too strong a wording for something that doesn't follow a guideline (as opposed to a policy). Nevertheless I do not feel the usage of IEC prefixes is justified here. Since an RFC should just contain brief responses I've put my long-winded arguments in the section above. Jeh (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Which was a thoughtful and logical post. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In violation (and not appropriate). The MOSNUM explicitly states "...decimal definition in an article on hard drives...". The IEC prefixes are not used in practice to describe the size of hard disk drives, and their use in this article can only serve to confuse the average readership. There are many links in the article (e.g. SI prefix, Gigabyte) that lead the interested reader to tables of conversions between the different units (and this article doesn't need to provide another one). For other reasons why using the IEC prefixes in this article is not a good idea, please see my post above. GFHandel. 20:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In Violation. Per Greg L but with a few comments of my own. If one is truly interested in the difference between a megabyte and a mebibyte, or any other permutations of a byte, then there is more than a sufficient number of places that the reader can go to find it. They don't need it in their faces at every turn, especially when they can't go to their local tech store and ask the sales person there for a one Tibibyte hard drive.SteveB67 (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL! “One tibibyte hard drive”. Indeed, Steve, they’d be laughed clean out of the store and they’d joke when the guy left about how me must have gone to Wikipedia to learn how to talk Klingon. Greg L (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's already "in their face", everytime someone plugs in their new 1TB harddrive and only sees 931 GB and then wonders why. Wikipedia is here to answer that question. --RaptorHunter (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

But a table that says "931 GiB" won't answer that question. Because that's not what they're seeing in their OS. Jeh (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

False. If there OS is ubuntu, it is what they will see.--RaptorHunter (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That'd be less than 1%? GFHandel. 22:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Ubuntu is written by space cadets, for space cadets. Those people already know this stuff anyway. This article is written for a general-interest readership, not for Wesley Crusher in the year 2350. With the exception of space-cadet OS, Jeh is 99 times more correct than RaptorHunter. All the major computer OSs don’t mention KiB, MiB, GiB, or TiB. They either typically say 1 TB* (* 1 TB = one terabyte = 1,000,000,000 bytes, actual formatted capacity is less) or they say Actual formatted capacity: 986,710,016 bytes. No computer manufacturer or hard drive manufacturer when communicating to a general-interest readership (consumer) is using the IEC prefixes. Arguments that “931 GB” is somehow explained by saying “It’s 931 GiB” is either galactic cluelessness over how to do technical writing or, more likely, grasping at logical straws in hopes no one here will notice. The actual way one would explain this supposed “931 dilemma” is along the lines of One terabyte equals 1,073,741,824 bytes (1024³ bytes) in some contexts (typically memory such as RAM), and in other contexts can mean 1,000,000,000 bytes (typically storage such as hard disk drives. It doesn’t really matter much except to Wikipedians who don’t have a life and argue on talk pages. All but that last sentence is clearly covered on MOSNUM. RaptorHunter should just go edit our Ubuntu article if (big “if”) the IEC prefixes are commonly used in that discipline by the RSs for that article. Greg L (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu? That's what you're hanging your argument on? The vast majority of users (Windows users) will see "931 GB." About 7% (current Mac OS X users... actually likely fewer than that, as many will not have upgraded to the newer versions) will see "1000 GB" and need no further explanation. Linux has less than 2% user share and Ubuntu is only about half of that... this doesn't constitute a significant "source" to be cited. I think we will also not be including a table entry quoted in "blocks" for the benefit of VMS users (fan of VMS though I am). Jeh (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I started this RfC because debating this with RaptorHunter was like some sort of electronic feedback loop that could go on forever. I’ve seen that when editors insist “up” is “down” and “mentioning the IEC prefixes in a table amounts to directly discussing them”, there no point arguing. I’ve seen that when some editors don’t get their way in an AfD (article for deletion) and when it fails, they go tag-bomb the article, the best thing is to not argue or editwar over the tag. The best thing is just to (*sigh*) and do an RfC and when the results are in, revert to the community consensus. Sometimes the smart ones go on to something else. Others continue to editwar and get blocked or banned. But the only way these things are ever settled is by just having an RfC and be done with the nonsense.

I note that Fnagaton hasn’t even weighed in and we all know full well how he will !vote. Then the community consensus will be quite clear: MOSNUM correctly has the proper guideline and this stunt was an attempt at circuitous, self-referential logic to circumvent the obvious.

The only common ground RaptorHunter and I have appears to be that the F‑22 Raptor is an awesome, way-cool fighter. But that doesn’t make up for all this hassle-factor. Greg L (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In violation I have explained at great length why IEC prefixes should not be used. [12][13][14] I do think that if RaptorHunter continues to edit against consensus then administrative sanctions are appropriate. This RfC is useful to the extent that it clearly demonstrates WP:MOSNUM still has consensus and that the case against using IEC prefixes is still valid. I hope that those who were calling for IEC prefixes to be used look at this and decide to accept the consensus that IEC prefixes should not be used. Fnag aton 22:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Side discussion about canvassing. Not germane to RfC

~~Actually Fnagaton can't vote since he was canvessed [15] via email. — Becksguy (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)~~

This is not a vote, this is so everyone can see a summary of opinions. I was asked by email to give my opinion and was not asked to vote in a particular way for this RfC. I would have commented sooner or later since I regularly watch WP:MOSNUM for subjects related to binary prefixes. It would look very silly if someone wanted to ignore the views of someone who helped write the rules. Note I was contacted before this RfC began and as such my comment stands and is appropriate to be considered. Fnag aton 23:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but selectively notifying users to comment in an RFC is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Votestacking. It's also a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing (You can't use email to notify users). You're vote will be discounted from the final total.--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to you both. From what Becksguy wrote, it was Fnagaton who was canvassed; not the other way around. Actually, WP:CANVAS begins with this: In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Do you, Becksguy, have evidence that whomever canvassed Fnagaton did not notify him for this in mind?

Moreover, WP:Canvassing#How to respond to inappropriate canvassing mentions only about sanctioning the individual who did the canvassing (assuming for the moment that even occurred here); it says nothing about disenfranchising editors who care to participate in group discussion in order to form a consensus.

In Binary Archive B11, Fnagaton’s name appears some 100 times and he was exceedingly active in WT:MOSNUM discussions that lead to the current MOSNUM guideline. His views mater as much here as anyone else’s and can not be penalized for the sins of the father. His !vote and accompanying argument will be considered along with anyone else here who has been acting in good faith. Greg L (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Note I was contacted by RaptorHunter before this RfC began and as such I was not canvessed for this RfC therefore my comment stands and is appropriate to be considered. In the email RaptorHunter mentioned something about noticing I had not edited recently so emailed me to make sure I was available. I find it suspicious that you would not now mention this RaptorHunter. Fnag aton 23:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Please don’t be baited by RaptorHunter’s definitive-sounding tone. He is certainly not an admin and can not make such judgements and is just trying to rattle your cage and bite back at you after things seem to be going south for him. Such matters as which wikipedians must be disenfranchised for the sins of someone else will be up to the closing admin. There is certainly a community consensus forming here that MOSNUM, correctly applied here, does not permit the use of the IEC prefixes like this. Your reasoning is in line with the consistent consensus view and I’m sure will certainly be given its proper weight. Just ignore his pontificating. Though it is seemingly delivered with high brow and pouted lower lip from a tall steed whose nostrils are flaring in the morning mist, it means little. All you need to do is respond “Please kind sir, dismount from thy high horse for you blocketh the light down here for the minions” and continue to act in good faith in all-matters-Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you attempting to imply that I sent you the email??? I have never sent ANY emails to ANYONE on wikipedia. It sounds to me like you are just retaliating for me declaring your vote invalid after User:Becksguy, brought this secretive email business to my attention.--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You did send me an email. I thought you initially did so in good faith since I was very active on WP:MOSNUM and you were looking for advice. But now that you are denying sending the email I think it looks suspicious. Was your real intention to attempt to remove my ability to comment on any RfC by using WP:CANVASS since you noticed I have previously commented against IEC prefixes? Very clever if that was the intention, but that would be a gross violation of the rules and I think you should be blocked for doing so. At the very least your comments on this talk page should be struck from the record. Fnag aton 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You and I both know that I never sent you any such email. If you really think that I would do something so devious, maybe you should post the email to Wikipedia:ANB. But we both know you won't. The entire story is nothing more than a fabrication.--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a fabfrication. Anyway since you contacted me before this RfC and this contact is mentioned before this RfC began then WP:CANVASS does not apply to this RfC. Obviously so since how can I be canvassed for an RfC that had not begun? Fnag aton 23:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter Since you deny sending me an email despite the fact you did and keep on writing other untrue comments on my talk page I am now asking you to stop writing on my user talk page. Any further comments from you will be considered harassment and I will report you. Fnag aton 00:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Fnagaton, think for a minute. If I was sending out emails (which i'm not), why would I contact the anti-IEC users? That just doesn't make any sense. Also, I could just as easily report you for the constant WP:NPA violations and false accusations--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote I thought you initially emailed me in good faith to ask for my honest opinion since I was active in creating the WP:MOSNUM rules. I was not going to mention who emailed me until your "Sorry but selectively notifying users to ..." comment since it looked like you did not want to let everyone know you did email me, perhaps you feared sanctions? In any case since you emailed me before this RfC and since you did so in a neutral manner then WP:CANVASS does not apply here. I remind you it would be you who is making false accusations. Do not attempt to contact me in the future because I will report you for harassment. Unwanted emails and talk page comments is the reason my talk page is semi-protected in the first place. Fnag aton 00:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would I want your opinion? Post the email here if it is more than a fabrication.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote I thought you initially emailed me in good faith to ask for my honest opinion since I was active in creating the WP:MOSNUM rules. It would be aggreeable with WP:NPOV to ask someone who helped write the rules to comment on what the rules mean. The email is long since deleted as I generally always do with emails from people I don't want to keep in the archives. It is a matter of record that you contacted me before this RfC so you cannot have canvassed me for this RfC so my comments in this RfC stand. I have to ask how many other people did you contact about IEC prefixes? Fnag aton 00:31, 10 April 2011(UTC)

Record? You have no record. You have no email. Why? because it never existed. You made the whole thing up. Like I said, I never emailed anyone on wikipedia.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

When I wrote Do you, Becksguy, have evidence that whomever canvassed Fnagaton did not notify him for this in mind?, it was not on my mind that the good intentions permitted by WP:CANVAS were over how RaptorHunter wrote a “I miss you… XOXOXO” love-letter e-mail to Fnagaton. Most bizarre… I’m not *feeling the magic* in the room here. I’m going back to Earth now… In the mean time, try leaving a little electronic white space below for some other poor misfortunate who might try to weigh in here. Greg L (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the above is a bunch of extraneous garbage. Someone please collapse this thread—I tried it (∆ edit, here) but RaptorHunter thinks it highly germane and great reading. You two go bicker on your user talk pages so an RfC can be conducted here. This is pathetic. Greg L (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried contacting him on his user talk page 3 times, but everytime he just deletes it with an edit summary calling me a liar. Apparently he's afraid of his fabrication being exposed.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Don’t care. An RfC is a no-wikidrama zone. Greg L (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm AGF that there was no intent to push this RfC in any particular direction. Neutral "canvasing" occurs when all editors are asked for input, which is why I added the {{RFC}} tag to open up this discussion to a wider audience. I fully accept Fnagaton's statement that the email requests were neutral and intended to "broaden discussion", and withdraw the comment. Yes, these discussions are not votes, yet I sometimes see comments in RfC and XfD discussions effectively counting how many editors support vs oppose. So there is some tendency to headcount even though we are not supposed to. This is not about sanctioning anyone, or accusing anyone, just about increased transparency. However, in retrospect, I should have just asked Fnagaton, who has gained considerable respect in my eyes, about the emails on his talk page. It would have saved a boatload of wikidrama. At least I learned something here. Yes, Greg, I will collapse this part of the thread. It's over and done with. — Becksguy (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Compliant for secondary usage, non-compliant for primary usage (except, e.g, in articles about IEC). I'm writing a long rationale and elaboration to be posted above the RfC to avoid long posts here, as did Jeh. — Becksguy (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In Violation

The prefixes aren't relevant to each other; IEC prefixes are obsolete. The purpose of comparing them is nothing more than moot. NERVUN (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually they are slowly gaining wider acceptance. Please read Binary_prefix#Software and Timeline_of_binary_prefixes#2000s. Thank you!--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? Well, the second statement in your first source hardly seems to support your argument. NERVUN (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, NERVUN. You like short, sweet posts. If you look at the edit history of Timeline of binary prefixes#2000s, you will find the same old names who fought the current MOSNUM guideline that banned this practice. They are very animated and it takes time for these RfCs to percolate throughout the rest of the community that understands that we don’t let editors hijack Wikipedia to promote neato ideas, and we instead just follow the way the real world works. Greg L (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Was that first statement supposed to be condescending, or a legitimate compliment? And, with the rest of the post, yeah, basically what I was trying to get at. I got here kind of late, and the above arguments tl;dr. XP bad habit, I know. NERVUN (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Compliant as per WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Quantities of bytes and bits. Inclusion of Tebibyte/Gibibyte is more informative and people can understand the dissimilarity between Giga/Gibi. --Amit6 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The IEC prefixes are not familiar to the readers so using them is not more informative. This page is not meant to teach about the dissimilarity between Giga/Gibi there are other pages for that. Glider87 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As someone who helped write the WP:MOSNUM rules I can confirm say those rules do not allow Tebibyte/Gibibyte specifically because they are not familiar and therefore they are not more informative.[16] [17]Fnag aton 06:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Compliant The MOS only disadvices their uses because they might cause confusion. In this case they prevent it. —Ruud 22:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The IEC prefixes are not familiar to the readers so using them causes confusion. Glider87 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, what Ruud wrote is simply not true. MOSNUM disadvises against their use because hardly anyone has heard of these units and Wikipedia is supposed to follow the RSs. Greg L (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that was true a few years ago, but not anymore. Anyone that's ever visited the Pirate bay has heard of it. Anyone that uses Ubuntu has heard of it. There's a whole long list of websites, software tools and more that use these prefixes. It's becoming more and more common all the time. Thousands and thousands of people see these prefixes every day. Wikipedia is here too explain what they mean.--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Still their use is in the minority. So it is in violation of WP:UNDUE to use them here. Also this page is not meant to explain what they mean that job is meant for other pages. Glider87 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority have never heard of them. Because the vast majority of the RSs don’t. To say that Ubuntu 1% market share) uses them and that means Wikipedia should use them now stretches “follow the RSs” to absurd proportions. It is disingenuous. Other editors have tried to douche them from that table for a long time on this bedrock principle of “follow the RSs” and the only reason that stuff is still there is because of galactic-grade tendentious editing to put them back. That’s gotta end right here right now. Greg L (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the meaning of those words is know to a far larger population than the 1% of Ubuntu users as claimed above. Furthermore, you are severely underestimating to the reader's ability to understand the meaning from context. In the current current context, I would hypothesize, the usage of the IEC prefixes would help explain the situation better even if the reader was not familiar with their meaning beforehand. —Ruud 05:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

They are still not known to the majority though so using them is not compatible with WP:UNDUE. Not to mention that using power notation for disambiguation would cause much less confusion than using IEC prefixes.Fnag aton 06:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not Compliant

The IEC prefixes are not relevant to this page because this article is not about IEC prefixes. Any confusion over values should use the power style described in WP:MOSNUM. It is a violation of WP:UNDUE to try to use them here because they only have minority use in the real world. Glider87 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Compliant

For the most part the SI system can be used on any computer measurement, above one byte (B), bit (b) or hertz (Hz) assuming that the annotation measures' letters are capitalizes properly to avoid the confusion of (b)its and (B)ytes and (K)illo with (k)illa. However in Information Systems we rarely use the Three character GiB in place of GB because we need not go into decimals and we have not yet needed to go past exabytes in storage. This is because the smallest storage in the computer a single bit; on or off, yes or no, true or false --Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 00:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Misguided RFC No one is attempting to use tibi or its friends to specify the size of disk drives so the MOSNUM guideline does not apply. Editors of this article felt it desirable to show some alternatives used for one sample size specification. Claims that the MOSNUM guideline must be followed are mistaken. What is meant is that past discussions show that anyone who systematically adds TiB to articles where TB is used will be reverted (something that I would support). However, despite its authors' hopes, MOSNUM does not apply everywhere—if you want that, get it converted to a policy. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

NOTICE: CANVASSING TROUBLE. END OF RFC It appears that the above editor, Charles E. Keisler, was individually contacted by User:RaptorHunter. This is a perma-link to Charles’ talk page with RaptorHunter’s message. It is also clear that RaptorHunter contacted over 100 individual editors, 18% of whom were from Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux only a day after noting on this talk page (here in this ∆ edit) that Ubuntu uses the IEC prefixes. It was immediately pointed out to him that Linux, which has only a 2% market share and only one-half that is Ubuntu (thus, a 1% market share). Something will have to be done about discerning a proper consensus in this matter. However, I fear that this extreme form of canvassing has irreparably damaged this RfC. Greg L (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

NOT THE END OF THE RFC - CONTINUE TO POST The RFC notices were not biased and complied with wikipedia guidelines. Read more here: [18]--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The notices did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines. I think you should be blocked for sending emails to editors and attempting to canvass and change the result of the RfC. Glider87 (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We have already gone over this. I did not send anyone emails. Relevant discussion is at WP:ANI. I've asked Fnagaton for said emails to be posted. He refuses because said emails DO NOT EXIST. It is a complete fabrication.--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Fnagaton says you did and given your poor conduct with other canvassing I believe him. He also has no reason to lie about it. On the other hand you do have reasons to deny it because he spoke out against your point of view and you would get into trouble for sending an email to canvass an editor. Fnagaton wrote he deleted the email since he didn't want to keep it. Fair enough. I think you have a lot of explaining to do.Glider87 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have said everything I am going to say about this here. If you have futher comment, the WP:ANI is still open. I owe nothing to you. Goodbye.--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

@Glider87: It is totally unacceptable for an editor to make any claim about another editor (like "they sent me an email") unless there is supporting evidence. In most mail clients, you have to go to a bit of trouble to totally remove a received message, and it is absurd to claim an editor sent a canvassing email, and claim the email cannot be produced. It is also totally unacceptable for a third editor to make supportive statements with no evidence ("I believe him"). Your reasoning (editor A is good and editor B is bad, therefore anything A says about B must be true) has no place on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Glider87 did not make the claim. I did. I know who sent me an email. As already said I wasn't going to out the editor until that editor started trying to make it look like they didn't send me an email in the first place. Given RaptorHunter's obvious large scale canvassing and trying to remove Greg's posts about that canvassing it isn't beyond belief that he also sent me an email earlier on. There are limits to assuming good faith. To delete an email, permanently, is very easy you click the delete button. With the email fetched from the server, then deleted by the actual email fetch, then with no access to SMTP logs a deleted email is very hard to get back. Especially when said email was fetched by a https webmail based system with no physical files on the local PC.Fnag aton 09:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

ADDENDUM It might be possible for this RfC to move forward, but I ask that all editors who were personally contacted by User:RaptorHunter to strike their !votes, above. And anyone who was so contacted should refrain from participating in this RfC. Greg L (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is far too much of this appealing to narrow fringe practices, or plain bad practices, out there, and running to the style guides using them as justification for what one or two editors personally prefer. Honestly, bibikibibibi, it not only sounds dumb—I can well image you'd be met with incredulous looks in the real world. Please, get a handle on it. Tony (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not Compliant

What part of "use the decimal definition in an article on hard drives" is so hard to understand?
Here is how crazy capacity claims can get:
A 3.5" floppy disk holds 1,474,560 bytes.
If you assume K=1,000 and M=1,000,000 (1,000x1,000), that's 1.47MB.
If you assume K=1,024 and M=1,048,576 (1,024x1,024), that's 1.40MB.
Only by making an "M" by multiplying 1,000x1,024 (1024,000) do you get 1.44MB.
The MOSNUM guideline was debated extensively. The decision was made, and now we should simply comply rather than arguing about it. Guy Macon (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In violation: There is a problem expressing disk sizes but the obscure IEC binary prefixes are not the answer. After a very long debate ending in 2008, the consensus was not to use the IEC binary prefixes in Wikipedia articles except in very limited cases. The reason was that a decade after the standard was adopted the computer industry was not using them at all. This is still the case three years later. This RFC is for use with hard disk drives and that industry has explicitly rejected the IEC binary prefixes. If you read the argument in the class action lawsuits on disk drive sizes; the companies' state they don't use IEC binary prefixes because nobody has heard of them. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Compliant ~ that section is about "capacity" and "capacity measurements" so I think they belong and pertain to both measurement standards.
Proposal ~ I think it would be better (and really great) if Greg L and RaptorHunter will join their "forces", work hard (and together) on improving this article, and then nominate it for featured article (now it's B-class).
Isn't a better "solution" than a debate about the deletion of a table?
If you (Greg L and RaptorHunter and all other editors who want to join this FA-effort) decide for this solution, I (and — hopefully — many other editors) are always available for any help if, as and when needed. (It's hard but not impossible. More info at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates; Wikipedia:Featured article criteria; Wikipedia:Featured article review) HaPpY EdItInG! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)