Template talk:Quantities of bytes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


@people reverting the edits to this: The list in its unedited state effectively doesn't contain the most widely used 1KB=1024B notation. The IEC poppycock is so rarely used that even including them in a table like this is just trying to push them down people's throats. If you really think it's necessary to even include those ridiculous -ibi units in this table, don't make them the primary/only notation in the table. Boatmurdered (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

They're not primary/only, and we include them for completeness and lack of ambiguity. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The table has been reverted to a state where the binary value column is duplicated, and there is no way to quickly know that the binary values are slightly larger than the decimal values. In both cases, I am having trouble seeing this as anything but a step in the wrong direction.  :-( —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
There is duplication because and only insofar as the SI prefixed units are ambiguous as to their meaning (decimal or binary?; c.f. User:Boatmurdered above and Kilobyte). As for losing the decimal approximations of the binary values, it makes the navbox rather wide and arguably would be better suited as actual article content (see Binary_prefix#Deviation_between_powers_of_1024_and_powers_of_1000). --Cybercobra (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

IEC, ISO and JEDEC Prefixes[edit]

The IEC and ISO prefixes are documented in international standards for magnitudes up to and including YB and YiB. They are also used in hundreds of scientific articles every year. The JEDEC prefixes are documented in a JEDEC standard up to and including GB. Like compvis I do not believe the JEDEC prefixes are used for large magnitudes. The version proposed by compvis is better than that proposed by arthur rubin. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines terabyte as "1024 gigabytes or 1,099,511,627,776 bytes" first and "one trillion bytes" second. My personal belief is that being concerned with using every available byte is infeasible beyond the megabyte level, so the distinction between the powers-of-ten based meanings and powers-of-two based meanings becomes less important for quantities of one gigabyte and above. Hence usage examples tend to be more approximate and it will often be hard to discern which meaning the author of an example had in mind.
The dictionary I cited does not have definitions for petabyte or exabyte. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The argument repeatedly used against IEC prefixes is that they are not used, so let's look at usage. WP's exabyte cites one IBM article that goes up to 16 EB with binary meaning. That's only one article but it seems an important one. There seems no justification to claim though, as this template does, that JEDEC prefixes are applied to quantities larger than 1 EB. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

See also: WP:COMPUNITS[edit]

The template currently includes WP:COMPUNITS under "See also". I removed it on the grounds that "generally article space should not link to WP space", but Jc3s5h restored it, saying that "template space is not article space, and the link to the WP space page is not visible in the transclusion of this template".

While I agree that WP:Template namespace is not Wikipedia:Article namespace, and that the "see also" list is not visible (being tagged as <noinclude>), I still do not believe it is appropriate. Wikipedia:SELF#In the Template and Category namespaces says (with my emphasis)

Limited use of self-references are sometimes found in the Template namespace and the Category namespace, such as with disambiguation and stub notices. Expanding this to other areas is not encouraged...

If we really think that a reference to the WP page is necessary at all, it should probably be a {{selfref}} hatnote, but even then I don't think it appropriate or necessary. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I consider the general practice in English in this area to be unstable. We have popular usage avoiding the IEC prefix, but standards-making bodies endorsing them and discouraging the binary meaning of SI prefixes. Thus, I anticipate that some sort of readjustment is likely in the future. Links between WP guidelines and templates will make it easier to be aware of the areas that should be examined if the practice in the English language changes.
Also, reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid, I think it only applies to material that is visible in articles. If you look at {{cite book}}, for example, the documentation is chock full of links to pages in template and WP space. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The International System of Quantities (ISQ)[edit]

The so-called "IEC prefixes" are now part of the International System of Quantities (ISQ). Given that the ISQ is a broad collaboration between ISO and IEC, the heading "IEC" seems too narrow to describe the present situation. With this in mind I propose replacing the header "IEC" with "ISQ". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm. As someone who generally prefers precise and current terminology, I concur. As someone who supports the notion of using the most familiar terms (e.g. WP:COMMONNAME), I have my doubts. Jeh (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair comment. On the other hand, given that few readers have heard of IEC prefixes at all, even fewer will worry too much whether they are called "IEC prefixes" or "ISQ prefixes", so perhaps this is one of those times to favour precision. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Styling using navbox classes[edit]

A recent edit replaced in-line styling by navbox classes. Apart from an acceptable change of coloring, it also has the rather ugly effect that the main title is no longer centered, and the VTE temmplate no longer right aligned. I have tried to fix it, but could not succeed. User:Frietjes might have a try at correcting it. −Woodstone (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

should be better, we can't use width:2em due to the vte links floating outside of the sidebar on Firefox. Frietjes (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks ok now. I suppose you will repeat the process on the sister templates of bits and prefixes? −Woodstone (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent addition of terabyte in JEDEC column[edit]

Are people comfortable with this edit? The issue is not whether the terabyte is sometimes used in this way (that it is has been established at Talk:terabyte), but whether said use merits it acquiring the same status as other entries in the same column. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced so no reason not to have it. It's irrelevant if someone personally dislikes it because it's what is reliably sourced that matters. The entire JEDEC column should should be renamed to "common prefixes" and contain all the commonly used prefixes as binary quantities because that's what is used in reliable sources. Again this is about correctly representing reliable sources and improving the coverage and relevant of Wikipedia. Fnagaton 23:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Let's have a look at it from the current usability standpoint: where would TB be used as 10244 bytes, at least frequently enough? At the present state of technology, pretty much nowhere as the computer storage uses powers of ten (for both HDDs and SSDs), while single-computer RAM capacities in the range of terabytes are still very rare. Thus, IMHO we should be better without it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The "binary terabyte" can hardly be called a "customary usage" when there are no products that use it. And, as I wrote about three weeks ago in response to Fnagaton's arguments on another of these templates' talk pages: References for the entries in this column are here for kilo, here for mega, and here for giga. We can't say that JEDEC defines tera until this page exists, or until "tera" appears on this page.
These are the pages of JEDEC's dictionary in which they define the standard terms that they recommend to their member companies for use. Mere mentions of tera "in a binary sense" within JEDEC's other pages cannot be said to be at the same level, not until "the tera page" exists. Fnagaton has never responded to this point. I consider this point definitive, particularly as Fnagaton has never made a cogent rebuttal to it, only continuing to cite mere "mentions". Jeh (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jeh. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Windows uses TB as binary for hard disks. The JEDEC also define it as a binary quantity. There is no reason not to include TB ain the JEDEC column. Glider87 (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The "cannot be used at the same level" reason is WP:OR and does not prohibit other reliable sources being used. As I've done I've cited the other standards document that shows terabyte with binary quantities. Trying to claim a link must exist before you accept something is an invalid reason since it's not compatible with WP:RSGlider87 (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The way Windows displays storage capacity is a rather good point, but how many times do we state the numbers Windows reports as the capacity of a storage device in a Wikipedia article, just to describe how large a device is? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
This revert [1] does not follow WP:PAYWALL which says "Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf". The reference is accurate and the account is free to get. These other reliable sources also list all the prefixes with power of two values. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The last few also describe the power of two use as "common". Such common use means it gets included in the table with references and the column header can be changed to reflect this common use. I also don't have to respond to incorrect claims about fabricated links to pages that don't exist Jeh. You claim is not cogent Jeh because the JEDEC use of terabyte with power of two values is reliably sourced. Your insistence on a particular link being created is illogical Jeh and as Glider87 points out it is a violation of WP:OR and WP:RS. Fnagaton 14:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously a specific missing page is not by itself definitive, but the fact that "Tera" is missing from this page remains. No, you don't have to respond, in which case the point remains valid. I am not disputing that various JEDEC documents use the term. I am disputing that they define the term. Clearly, they do not. Jeh (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fnagaton, IMHO pulling the WP:PAYWALL guideline as an argument for something that should be very simply accessible doesn't make much sense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
It is accessible and verifiable if you create a free account. There is a copy of it here without an account.Fnagaton 14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
You can ask Swtpc6800 about that WP:PAYWALL guideline if you like.Fnagaton 14:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
On which page in that PDF is the definition of "binary" terabyte, please? Searching for "TB", "terabyte" and "1024" returned nothing. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Page 100 "The maximum density possible to be indicated is thus 2 Tera bytes (4 294 967 296 x 512B)" which is a power of value value. Fnagaton 14:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Terabyte use as power of two values [13] and [14] with hard disks, from a hard disk manufacturer.Fnagaton 15:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Wherein Seagate says " all major disk drive manufacturers use decimal values when discussing storage capacity." Doesn't exactly help your case. They do note that Windows uses "binary values" but no one has disputed that point. Jeh (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
As we know, this template tries to list various units as categories defined by the respective standardization bodies. Obviously, JEDEC doesn't define a "binary" terabyte; instead, JEDEC just mentions it somewhere and that's the key. Thus, if we include "binary" terabyte under the "JEDEC" column, it's no longer JEDEC who defines all units in that column. What should we list instead of JEDEC, as there must be some standardization body that defines various units? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe that any widely-recognized standardization body other than JEDEC has codified the use of any of the SI prefixes for any meaning other than as powers of 1000, and JEDEC has only defined kilo, mega, and giga. That's the whole point. The "JEDEC" column head is parallel to "Metric" (SI) and "IEC". Everything in the JEDEC column should be similarly defined by that organization. There is exactly one document at JEDEC where JEDEC publishes their standardized definitions of terms, and "tera" is not among their definitions. It is misleading to list "tera" in that column as if it were on an equal footing with the others. It is not "OR" to note that JEDEC's definitions document does not have a page for "tera", or that "tera" is missing from that document's list of terms that start with "T". On the contrary, it is blatant synthesis to generalize from a mere mention to a formal definition. Jeh (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
This template shows byte quantities, it's not only for what you thin is in standards bodies. It is misleading to not include significant points of view expressed in reliable sources.Glider87 (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Jeh you are incorrect about the JEDEC only having binary tera in one document. The JEDEC JESD88E says "terabyte commonly used as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity and meaning 240 [1 099 511 627 776] bytes" It is WP:OR to try to create any meaning about a link you create not existing, unless you can find a reliable source that supports what you claim about terabyte not being defined because of that specifc link you mention not existing. The mega entry in the JEDEC link already has an entry for tera with a binary quantity. So you are violating WP:NPOV by refusing to accept those reliable sources.Glider87 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Jeh your claim is incorrect because the JESD88E link above is from the JEDEC Dictionary of Terms for Solid-State Technology — 6th Edition. It is blatant synthesis to try to claim a dead link you CREATED means anything other than it's a dead link. Not updating one link in a dictionary in a particular part of a website doesn't invalidate common usage demonstrated by other links from the same organisation. As Glider87 correctly points out it's a violation of NPOV to not include commonly used prefixes in the binary column. Their common use is documented by reliable sources.Fnagaton 23:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the question about the JEDEC use of terabyte. This is not an extraordinary claim that requires multiple sources. It is just the next unit of size. I provided one clear expression of use in a JEDEC standard. (JEDEC Standard. MultiMediaCard (MMC) Electrical Standard, High Capacity (MMCA, 4.2) JESD84-B42 Page 100.) I was on the JEDEC Solid State Memories committee JC-42 in the 1980s. The standards are developed before the chips are produced, they may precede the actual devices by a year or more. The dictionary is maintained by JC-10. The June 2013 version of JESD88E is the current version and it defines a binary terabyte on page 226. The online dictionary has undue notability here on Wikipedia because of a foot note about possible confusion the decimal and binary use of megabytes on 3.5 inch floppy diskettes. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It is amazingly disingenuous of you - that is, of course, a polite way of saying "you're lying" - to cite that entry in JESD88E as support for the binary definition of terabyte. Did you think no one would check up on you? Here it is in its entirety, with boldface and font size changes preserved:

terabyte (TB) ( in reference to solid-state drive capacity): A memory capacity approximately equal to 1x1012 bytes.
NOTE Contrast with terabyte commonly used as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity and meaning 240 [1 099 511 627 776] bytes.

The "commonly used" binary definition is in smaller type for a reason. JEDEC's primary definition, from the document Fnagaton or Glider linked, is the decimal one. The binary definition is clearly not intended to be taken as equally definitive. Even if we ignore the type size change, the best you could then say is that this definition gives equal weight to both definitions (but that would be OR, because the type size change is definitely there).
Meanwhile, the "tera" page is still conspicuously missing from their online dictionary. Fnagaton, you are correct, that a specific page link for tera, one that I made up, is not there is not definitive. But the fact that none of you will be able to find a page for "tera" alongside the ones for "kilo", "mega", and "giga" in the JEDEC online dictionary most certainly is: There is no page for "tera" in that dictionary. And well you all know it, no matter how you try to twist and turn to get away from it. Jeh (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Fnagaton makes a good point that you've not refuted, namely that you cannot put any special meaning to an out of date dictionary when there are reliable JEDEC sources that do define terabyte with binary meaning. All you're doing is ignoring the evidence that shows you're wrong.Glider87 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
My use of page 100 was the page in the PDF file, the printed page is 86. Here is an actual use of a binary terabyte.
JEDEC STANDARD "MultiMediaCard (MMC) Electrical Standard, High Capacity (MMCA, 4.2)" JESD84-B42 page 86. (PDF 100).
The device density is calculated from the register by multiplying the value of the register (sector count) by 512B/sector. The maximum density possible to be indicated is thus 2 Tera bytes (4 294 967 296 x 512B). The least significant byte (LSB) of the sector count value is the byte [212].
It appears that JEDEC is using the binary Terabyte in their new standards. The working standards committees (such as JC-42) don't worry about what is or isn't in the JEDEC dictionary. I was on JC-42 for about 10 years. --SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Frankly Jeh your attempts at fabricating links and what's actually used by the JEDEC is not neutral or reliable. You're wrong. So now you've been proven wrong with the facts, do you have any policy based objection to including all the commonly used prefixes in the table? Fnagaton 04:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Guys, this is slowly becoming ridiculous. The fact that some JEDEC document mentions the "binary" terabyte doesn't imply that JEDEC defines it at the same time. For example, the JESD84-B42 document also mentions numerous aspects of the SPI standard, but doesn't define it. Also, the fact that Windows uses "binary" terabyte to report storage capacity doesn't mean that JEDEC had defined it. Thus, based on the references provided so far we simply can't conclude that it is JEDEC who defines the "binary" terabyte. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It's included in the standards document, which is a definition, and in the "Dictionary of Terms for Solid-State Technology" which defines terms used in the standards. As they say in the document "This Sixth Edition includes definitions from 14 standards that were not included in the Fifth Edition plus revised definitions from 26 additional publications and standards that have been updated. All reported errors and necessary rewording have been taken into account.". That is a JEDEC definition. Fnagaton 12:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
From which source is that quote, please? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It's in the foreword of JESD88E. Jeh is being silly trying to claim a difference in font size has some special meaning just for terabyte when it doesn't. In other sections we can see the notes have different font sizes. It's just layout style, nothing more. If he wants to prove it then he needs to produce a reliable source. Glider87 (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I added reliable sources for the binary use of all these prefixes from the links provided above by Fnagaton at 14:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC). I could do with some help tidying up the references so they contain the book titles for each reference. Since the binary use of these prefixes is notable and common using reliable sources for each entry seems like overkill, but if you wanted to start referencing each use or definition then OK.Glider87 (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The policy in a nutshell "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)". Since power of two use of all these prefixes like terabyte/petabyte is widespread in sources it is a significant point of view, which means the policy demands their inclusion.Fnagaton 20:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert to 14 June 2015[edit]

I reverted to the last stable version (14 June, by Frietjes) because

  • The table had become impossible to read because of all the references, and
  • the instability demonstrates a lack of consensus for the changes.

Editors are requested to make proposals here at Talk and gain consensus for changes before implementing them. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See the section above for consensus. There are many reliable sources that show binary use so it should be included. You are requested to talk there. Glider87 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Removing the references and using this talk page as the repository of reliable sources would make the template more readable. The table has to include what significant reliable sources show. Removing that relevant information in that revert Dondervogel was the wrong thing to do.Fnagaton 00:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
As noted in my edit summary, there's absolutely no point in inundating numerous articles that transclude this template with all those references. Whatever we decide in the end, please let's keep the references on the talk page, not in the template. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dsimic Do you agreed that the recent additions are reliably sourced? If there is consensus for that, it is clearly time to make new articles for brontobyte and geopbyte as these are defined by the same "reliable source". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree as those sources aren't definitions, but I'm trying to open a path for further constructive discussion that doesn't involve discussionless reverts. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
All those links are definitions because they give the exact meaning of the words like terabyte etc. Reliable sources don't only have to come from standards organisations. Reliable sources have to be notable and they have to represent significant points of view. It is true that kilobyte all the way to zettabyte with binary values are notable and significant points of view. Glider87 (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you aware that various units, such as kilogram, pound, meter or inch, must be defined by different standardization bodies? For example, see one of the updates to the definition of pound, issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Thus, having some unit mentioned somewhere isn't automatically its definition. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic The trouble with your approach is that the only thing Fnagaton and his sock do is repeat "you are wrong" over and over again, and that is not constructive. That is why I reverted to before the first disruptive edit - that way any proposed change is done from a stable basis, and not the present version, which I totally reject. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong Dondervogel because you are not following policy and you are wrong because you resort to personal attacks about socks. For example according to Wikipedia policy and you can read the policy for the reasons why. Specifically articles and this template that is used in articles must be seen to be "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources" which means including "terabyte/megabyte/petabyte/etc = this power of two value". The definitions for this use comes from reliable sources and all the links provided are considered to be reliable sources for the purposes of defining the common usage of these prefixes. If you disagree then please cite precisely the Wikipedia policy that says only standards organisations definitions must be used in articles? If you cannot then provide that cite then there isn't any basis for excluding this common usage. It's not simply "being mentioned" it's multiple reliable sources reflecting real world usage and defining "terabyte/megabyte/petabyte/etc = this power of two value". As Swtpc6800 pointed out above "This is not an extraordinary claim". Not including this usage is not following the WP:NPOV policy. You hyave no policy based reasons for rejecting the good change to the template that ihcludes this extra reliably sourced information Dondervogel. Your edit can be considered disruptive because your revert pushes a point of view that is contrary to policy. Fnagaton 12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, so we have that "you are wrong" once again. :) Fnagaton, regarding the guideline you're asking for, it's covered by what WP:SKYISBLUE talks about, simply because the fact that various units and prefixes are defined by different standardization bodies prety much belongs to the elementary school knowledge. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
So you agree that the standard for inclusion into articles is "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources" not "must be defined by standards organisations". This means there is no good reason not to include "terabyte/megabyte/petabyte/etc = this power of two value" in this table. This is because it's neutral to include this information. The point of view that is being fairly and properly rejected is that from Dondervogel because his point of view that this reliably sourced common use should not be included in the table, his point of view is not neutral. Fnagaton 13:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
From WP:SKYISBLUE "show that the presentation of material on Wikipedia is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse or the world at large". What shows the the views that are presented in the world at large? Is it to show the definition and use of these prefixes with binary values? Or is it hiding the facts? The answer is of course showing the definition and use of these prefixes with binary values which means the common use column needs to be filled with all the prefixes supported by reliable sources, not just kilo/mega/giga. Definitions come from other sources not just standards organisations. Wikipedia is full of definitions from these kinds of reliable sources. Common use defines these binary prefixes, they are ipso facto definitions. Trying to say that definitions only come from some standards organisations ignores the world at large.Glider87 (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Fnagaton: This isn't an article, this is a template and as such it doesn't establish a NPOV; instead, it just provides links to other articles, and a summary of information provided by other articles. Thus, this discussion shouldn't be taking place here at all, but that's what we have at our hands. The primary question, I'll repeat it again, is do we want to include only formally defined "binary" units, or all commonly (and less commonly) used ones? Though, you don't seem to be willing to truly discuss the whole thing in a constructive way.
@Glider87: Technically, it's wrong to use SI prefixes (kilo, mega, etc.) to represent any other meanings than their SI-defined meanings of powers of ten; "binary" uses of those prefixes are an exception that's defined by another standardization body, which is JEDEC. I don't see the point of discussing the whole thing with you, as you seem to refuse to take any other arguments into consideration, and the primary argument you should consider is that various units and prefixes must be defined by respective standardization bodies. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just had a lovely ploughman's lunch and a decent local brewed beer in a little west country pub, so I'm being generous when I say it really doesn't matter if you think it's "technically wrong" because the majority of reliable sources regarding this topic use these prefixes with binary uses. Your arguments, which are weak, do not allow any of us to ignore the policies and guidelines about reliable sources and neutrality. Neutrality means we all have to reflect use as the reliable sources show us. Glider87 (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Why would your lunch, beer you had, and the assessment that you're in a "generous" mood matter for this discussion? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I was in a good mood. Now this template has neutral and reliably sourced information in this template it's much better than before.Glider87 (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, a person's mood shouldn't affect their viewpoints, especially when it's about establishing a NPOV. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
It's the facts that are relevant for establishing NPOV. So let's visit the facts. The prefixes all have many reliable sources for binary use. Such use has a long history and is common in reliable sources. What possible neutral explanation is there for not including such commonly used binary prefixes? Glider87 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I've already explained it a few times, and there's point in repeating it all once again. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This template is used to provide common information displayed inline in articles. It is therefore subject to the same neutrality policy as the articles. Since articles have to include commonly used binary units then this template has to as well. In answer to your question, it doesn't matter what you want to include because those guidelines and policies mentioned above obligate you and everyone else to be neutral and include these binary units because that's what the reliable sources do. See [WP:MOSNUM] for the reasons why.Fnagaton 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    It's a shame that people don't seem to want to talk about Wikipedia editing policies and instead revert without comment. They're not really trying to build consensus it seems.Glider87 (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    If they don't talk they're not engaging in the consensus process. Reverting workout talking would be disruptive.Fnagaton 16:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm an uninvolved editor. It's clear to me that the long list of references should not be included because it makes the rows no longer line up. It's also obvious from watching the long lame back-and-forth that there is no consensus to add anything to the JEDEC/Common Use column beyond "giga". Reyk YO! 09:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)