Talk:Kibibyte

message: Why toyabyte is named the same in both conventions if it has the higher difference ? (10^27 vs 2^90)
--Kewlito 14:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toyabyte 

message: Who has heard of a "weasel byte"? Only 4 Google hits, none of which are clearly about what is described here. Selling 1000 bytes as one KB is the weaselly thing, and 1024 bytes is fine, so if anything this is also the wrong way around.  --LambiamTalk 07:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I wrote the above, the section this referred to has been deleted.  --LambiamTalk 08:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Weasel byte?
 

message: Language is a convention. Words mean what native speakers actually use and understand them to mean. So far as I can tell from my usage and from the usage of other native speakers, "kilobyte" is perceived to mean 1024 bytes, and there are good reasons for this usage.
  It more closely reflects how computer storage is actually allocated and used.
  It is also how every computer I have every used reports storage capacity and availability.
  Since the vast majority of users see storage reported on their computers much more often than they buy storage, it is the meaning they encounter most often.
  The only time I ever see "kilobyte" used to mean 1000 bytes is in marketing, and even then RAM is still measured in powers of 2, because measuring it in powers would be too awkward, requiring the use of fractional amounts in something that is perceived as a count noun.
It would be less confusing for users if storage makers used terms like "20 billion bytes" instead of "20 GB."  For my own purposes, I use "marketing kilobytes" or mKB for 1000 bytes, though I'm sure this would never catch on. Bostoner (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistically 

message: Can we centralize this discussion somewhere for all the articles? — Omegatron 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These unit articles have very little content in them that isn't already in other articles.  They should all be merged into something.  Maybe Units of computer storage or Units of data? — Omegatron 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I observe the merge was done today without consensus. I undid it. One key reason is that many articles link to the unit name in the context of using it. The term is certainly unfamiliar to many, and this article helps by providing a focussed discussion. Notinasnaid 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah.  If the merge is going to be done it needs to be done right.  For one, each unit should have a section or separate definition, and the individual articles should redirect to each definition using anchor tags, so that people can link like KiB and go right to the definition. — Omegatron 17:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since this page must necessarily describe KiB in terms of MB and GB (and they must make reference to this page) it would make sense to merge them all into one page, with sections as necessary for the above issues.  -Gomm 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would make more sense to centralize this information.  At its core, all you need to do is display the table showing the individual unit names and their values in each category, and then have explanatory text about the general derivation of the words, common misuses, differences between Kebibyte and Kilobyte, etc.  Do we have individual articles for "gram", "kilogram", "centigram", "milligram", etc?  I doubt it - I don't see why units of data storage should be treated differently than units of length, weight or speed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit outdated. Now we have article on all SI units: kilogram, kilometer, nanometre, etc. We have stubs for rare units such as 1 zettametre. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This is not yet a standard, but it removes the perceived ambiguity and gives people something to say if they want a unit for 1000 bytes and it is thus recommended for those who must refer to powers-of-ten quantities of bytes.
103 bytes = 1000 bytes = 1 ψKB (or 1 pKB or 1 dKB)
106 bytes = 1000 ψKB = 1 ψMB
ψ- or p- for pseudo, portraying the fact that 1000 bytes is not 1 KB but is close to 1 KB, hence one pseudo-kilobyte.
Alternatively, d- for decimal, portraying the fact that 1 dKB = 103 bytes 
This new terminology would be consistent with the already-existing standard that 1 KB = 1024 bytes, 1 MB = 1024 KB, etc.
Ramorum (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe dKB was proposed too, but the KiB proposal was the one adopted by the standards organizations.  ψKB is the sort of thing you publish on your own site or blog.  Wikipedia is not the place to propose new standards. — Omegatron 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A new standard

message: Where can I join (what I assume must be an active) debate about whether new wikipedia pages should use kilobytes, which are in active use, or kibibytes, a term derived from a form of cat food? I mean Wikipedia is the only site I know of which uses these words, the only other places I've seen them mentioned (tech forums etc) are where their lack of uptake has been ridiculed. Please end this crusade already. Btw, that was a serious question. It's an issue that does bother me, and I would like to read the formal discussion that led to so many wikipedia pages using these abominable terms. Themania (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If only all questions were this simple to answer.  The presently accepted guidelines are at WP:MOSNUM, and these are frequently discussed on the corresponding talk page.  You will find the debate is heavily polarised. Please feel free to dive in with your views. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You don't seem to be interested in discussing at all. I'd recommend that you read the existing discussions and the available information, before you join any of them yourself. --217.87.75.67 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read to the end of his paragraph, that does seem to be his intent. 12.216.36.141 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to discuss use of this word in wikipedia 

message: The proposed "kibibyte" which stands for "Kilo Binary Bytes" is a misleading term.
What can this stand for? Possible interpretations:
1. Kilo (Binary Bytes) - a thousand of binary bytes. This is obviously incorrect.
2. (Kilo Binary) Bytes - "Kilo Binary" stands for a "thousand of binaries". The result is "2000 bytes". Incorrect again.
The correct approach would be to prefix the "Kilo" with the "Binary" modifier.
So the term should be "Binary Kilo Bytes".
Please consider this. Current term is strictly speaking unacceptable.
Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.238.96.4 (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct interpretation is that kibibyte does not stand for 'kilo binary byte', but that the prefix 'kibi' was constructed as a mnemonic from the words kilo and binary. Kibibyte then is a composite of the now standard term 'kibi' treated as a mathematical entity just like 'kilo' in the SI system. To explain its origins, these prefixes are still often explained by referring to 'kilobinary', etc., to help memorizing them, and even NIST does that, but to decompose the unit kibibyte into the original components and to try to analyze the meaning in turn is wrong. We don't revert to the origin of 'kilo' in kilobyte either to explain it. Kbrose (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect name? 

message: Kilobyte is 1024 bytes or 2^10.
a value of 2^10 conveys meaning only in binary. How about:
Kilobyte 10^3 Kibibyte 2^10 Decimal approximation: 1000 ( 2.4% error )
and how about Capitalization? The first kilo is in lower case?
I will be back to make this CLEAR 69.232.205.64 (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Another infobox fail...

message: On facebook the 2^10 is rendered as 210. What a shame. Who could be contacted?
Janburse (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with Facebook Ripoff

message: A kibibyte is currently accepted in the computing world as 1,024 bytes regardless of who may like to believe otherwise (including the IEC).  Disc manufacturers may prefer to use it in its more technically correct form as 1000 bytes for marketing reasons, but that does not change the accepted usage (disc drive manufacturers have to specifically state their non standard usage in most jurisdictions).  The use of 'kibi' for the former and 'kilo' for the later is not much more than a proposal at the present time.  Whether kibibyte is gaining more acceptance is moot as it certainly is not universally accepted as a valid unit and in reality is rarely used.  Wikipedia policy (at WP:MOSNUM recognises this and discourages its use precisely because it is not generally accepted.  The article is currently written as though it is universally accepted.  86.145.240.230 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Naw, I figure they'll state it again and again until blue in the face, take a breather, then keep saying it some more until everyone believes it.  This is about like trying to change the convention so that electrons are positive and protons negative, to make electricity make more sense.  Sorry guys, an arbitrary decision was made when producing the foundation of the field and now is a bit too late to change it.  Imagine if red lights meant go and green lights meant stop in a specific city with no warning to tourists.  :D  2601:1:9280:155:45FF:30A1:76F8:2112 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

text: It's starting to become more common.  Certain programs now reference KiB, MiB, etc. in both output and input options.  I have always had to mentally differentiate between kilo=1024 and kilo=1000 based on context.  Any computer professional has done this their entire career.  For us its hard to understand why the controversy.  
24.163.123.33 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any memory device manufacturer that actually uses this convention?  Every device datasheet I can ever remember seeing has used K M and G as 2^10, 2^20 and 2^30 respectively.  I just checked the data I have here, and even the latest datasheet I have (Micron MT51J256M32, dated 06/15) describes the device as an "8Gb: x16, x32 GDDR5 SGRAM". 113.88.128.130 (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is currently a nonsense 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kibibyte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071016171124/http://wdc.com:80/settlement/docs/complaint.htm to http://www.wdc.com/settlement/docs/complaint.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reference [1] (International Electrotechnical Commission (2007). "Prefixes for binary multiples". Retrieved 2014-01-09.) for unit symbol KiB does not now (2020-08-18) contain any mention of the unit symbol KiB, and is therefore irrelevant.
I have not contributed to Wikipedia before, and don't have the time to follow this up, so I will have to leave it to someone else to take an appropriate action to correct this anomaly.
80.6.125.214 (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The page mentions the unit name (kibibyte) but not its symbol (KiB). I moved it somewhere more appropriate. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant reference 

message: Following recent reverts, I vote we start the D in BRD. I prefer 's version of the lead  to that of  . What do others think? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at some samples of other units, it seems like adding the symbol directly after the title in the lead is the common way to do this. −Woodstone (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would suggest, that if Kbrose has nothing to add, we could consider a consensus reached to put the symbol directly after the title in the lead. To Kbrose: I agree with your edit summary "already stated in lede", so mine was not really a revert (I was simply lazy), but I choose to follow your suggestion, simply swapping choice where to place the symbol, after verifying other articles approach. After that, per consistency, I made the change to other similar articles. If you agree, it would be nice if you would rollback your rollback. --Robertiki (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Looks like this discussion is superseded by current discussion about a proposed merger.--Robertiki (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent reverts