Template talk:Bit and byte prefixes

message: Shouldn't byte be on this list? --Domthedude001 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byte 

message: When represents kilo, use small k, ever, because the Capital is used for represents the Kelvin units.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.38.167.125 (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This is explained in the kilobyte article that the abbreviation links to. — Omegatron 20:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the template is showing the standards, not common practice, which is too ambiguous for a concise table, anyway. — Omegatron 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital or small k for kilobyte 

message: The table as it was was misleading as it suggested that, for example, Megabyte had only the SI definition, and didn't take into account common usage of the binary type. I have expanded the table to make it clear that Megabyte, kilobyte etc can mean both binary and SI, whereas the new Mebibyte definitions relate to the binary numbers only. I hope everyone agrees that this helps to clarify the situation, which in itself, is unclear! --Rebroad 12:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification to table 

message: I think that the parenthesis as they are used now in the left hand side quantity column are confusing.  It doesn't seem clear to me that the "(SI standard meaning)" part from the row above applies to the quantity section.  What about something like:
Quantities of bytes 	Quantities of bytes 	Quantities of bytes   	Quantities of bytes 	Quantities of bytes                     	Quantities of bytes                     	Quantities of bytes
SI prefix quantities	SI prefix quantities	SI prefix quantities  	SI prefix quantities	Binary prefix quantitiesfrom IEC 60027-2	Binary prefix quantitiesfrom IEC 60027-2	Binary prefix quantitiesfrom IEC 60027-2
Name                	Symbol              	Value in Popular Usage	Value in Standard SI	Name                                    	Symbol                                  	Value
kilobyte            	kB                  	210                   	103                 	kibibyte                                	KiB                                     	210
megabyte            	MB                  	220                   	106                 	mebibyte                                	MiB                                     	220
gigabyte            	GB                  	230                   	109                 	gibibyte                                	GiB                                     	230
terabyte            	TB                  	240                   	1012                	tebibyte                                	TiB                                     	240
petabyte            	PB                  	250                   	1015                	pebibyte                                	PiB                                     	250
exabyte             	EB                  	260                   	1018                	exbibyte                                	EiB                                     	260
zettabyte           	ZB                  	270                   	1021                	zebibyte                                	ZiB                                     	270
yottabyte           	YB                  	280                   	1024                	yobibyte                                	YiB                                     	280
This way each numerical value has the usage-style directly above it, which seems clearer to me.  Downside is that the table is slightly bigger.  Comments? --Jakohn 19:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite big. — Omegatron 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Removed infobox class from both demos to make it easier to compare.) Shrunk a bit, now somewhat skinnier than current live version, just 2 lines longer.   Seem better? --Jakohn 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How 'bout something a little simpler than that, maybe something like this? — SheeEttin {T/C} 22:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats confusing as well because the parenthesis are ambiguous. In previous examples it was clear that they denoted a separate way of measuring, which is really what this whole chart is about. The purpose is to denote two different ways of measuring bytes. This version of the chart may be more compact, but it does not achieve the goal of making it easier to understand the difference between the two systems.12.135.134.146 00:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like this version.  See Template:Quantities of bits and Template:Bit rates as well. Keep in mind that "popular use" mostly applies to bytes, and not either of those two. — Omegatron 00:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parenthesis 

message: There's no toya-.  Indeed, the claimed abbreviation "T" would conflict with "Tera".  I found no citation for this claimed prefix, so I junked it. Dwheeler 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No toya- 

message: To bring up an old ignored topic, is there any particular reason why byte is not on the list? --Dlevenstein 16:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's quantities of bytes. A byte isn't a quantity of itself, is it? (And don't get all "reflexive property" on me, either, you know what I mean.) — SheeEttin {T/C} 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No byte 

message: Nice to know somebody enjoys tampering with the template (x-ray specs for exabyte? Honestly...). --Aerodotus 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I've just realised that JEDEC define kilo-, mega- and giga- but no further.  The table gives the misleading impression that binary definitions of tera-, exa- and so on are also sanctioned (or at least condoned) by JEDEC, when they are not.  My suggestion? Use FOLDOC instead. Thunderbird2 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at my edit above for the proposed table at "13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with the changes so far.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: My impression is that IEEE 100 is superseded by later IEEE standards following IEC and NIST. FOLDOC is the only reputable body I know that continues to endorse binary use of SI prefixes. Thunderbird2 (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to cast my vote against FOLDOC.  It's Denis' personal pet project.  He cites no references to support his definitions and employs no review process, which he is certainly free to do.  FOLDOC is essentially Denis' personal dictionary and since he appears to be a pretty knowledgable person on the subject, any single person would probably be well served by using his dictionary as their source.  But, FOLDOC is no more "official" than his personal opinion.  For the mega vs mebi battle, the template needs a FAR better source.  --JJLatWiki (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that none of us can think of a better source than FOLDOC.  JEDEC was used until we realised that they do not define prefixes larger than giga-.  What alternative source do you suggest for (binary) definitions of tera-, peta- ... yotta-? Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand the desire.  In my opinion, if a standards body has not defined it, then the source could be general purpose dictionary of the type that has various committees with appropriate experts and philologists and an editorial review process.  Unfortunately, the mainstream dictionaries are still reflecting the prevailing common usage of megabyte and ignoring the international and national standards bodies.  I say the fields that have no authoritative supporting source should be left blank.  It's unfortunate, but since the infobox information should be the most authoritative, its sources should be the most defensible.  --JJLatWiki (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Golly - hadn't thought of leaving any of it blank.  Are you you suggesting that we return to JEDEC and define only the first 3 prefixes, or do you mean the header should be left blank? Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not necessarily getting in the ring for JEDEC.  To me, their authority applies more to solid state devices and, more specifically, their members than to the broader electronics industry.  But, if they're the only standards or standardizations body with the desired definitions, then yes, put JEDEC instead of FOLDOC on top and leave the holes in the definition as holes in the table.  Maybe an asterisk in the empty boxes that says, "No authoritative definition".  Or, include the missing JEDEC definitions but with an asterisk that says, "By extrapolation. Not explicitly defined."  --JJLatWiki (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks like a good idea, but better reverse the last two columns then. −Woodstone (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I support that with JEDEC in either position.  I think both formats reflect the positions of the most relevant standards and standardizations bodies. I don't know protocol in templates, but should there be direct links in the template to supporting citations? --JJLatWiki (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe this is better than what we had, and no one has expressed opposition to it, so I have updated the template accordingly. I'm not sure how to deal with citations either, so in that respect I'm leaving it how it was. Thanks for your contribution. Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I am comfortable with either JEDEC (with the first 3 prefixes only) or FOLDOC (with the full set). But JJLatWiki makes a good point about the different status of the various organisations.  For example, if you put FOLDOC side by side with IEC, the implication is that they have comparable status.  How do we avoid giving that impression? Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know.  I'd just give it a neutral header like "binary prefix" like it used to have, and link to the article that explains that convention. — Omegatron (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not opposed to removing the JEDEC column entirely per se, but not in favor of FOLDOC.  I'm afraid, however, that if a "K=1024" column is not shown, the "K=1024" cabal (Note tongue-in-cheek) will protest.  If there is any notable standards or standardizations organization out there who either defines or endorses "1024=K", without the ambiguity of also endorsing "1024=Ki", I would favor it.  But at present, it seems everyone may be just waiting to see if this "Kibi-thing" catches on before they make a commitment.  Maybe JEDEC's duality is their interim move to follow the IEC.  Frankly, I don't understand why the ITU or TIA hasn't endorsed the "Kibi" since they're also strong users of the "K=1000" definition.  So, is there any way to explain why there is a JEDEC column showing only "K=1024" with just a link to another WP page?  Is that "self-referencing"?  --JJLatWiki (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: good idea Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  agreed --JJLatWiki (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  replacement header for JEDEC 

message: i've provided multiple sources for brontobytes.   why are some eidtors fighting to keep this out?     one said it is "non standard",  but this page isn't the "IEEE standard quantities of bytes" page.   do you guys have a better name for the quantity larger than yotta?   if not,  i'm going to put in bronto.    71.112.130.129 (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The brontobyte is a fake unit, used informally by some to signify "a lot of bytes", similar to the use of zillion. It does not belong in a table specifying precise and well defined quantities. For more information about the level of vaguary, see also the article bronto. −Woodstone (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: brontobytes

message: The contents of this template have been arrived at through consensus, but the name appears to be a historical accident. Recently User:Cybercobra has sought to change the template to fit the name and the analogy with Template:Quantities of bits (and perhaps even to refashion it as a navigation template), but that is not what is intended by the "users" of the template, most of whom use it as an informative table in the article, using a different template for navigation. So, rather than changing the template to fit the name, we should probably change the name to fit the template. How about "Template:Binary prefixes", once that one is deleted? Shreevatsa (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't seen your comment (only your edit summary), but I went ahead and moved the template. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: The recent template contains a "tera" in the JEDEC-section, which was added a few days ago. As discussed above, 100B.01 does not seem to define "tera" in a binary manner. Since no source was provided for the amendment and the user did not participate the above discussion, this is possibly a misapprehension. The preveious version seems to apply to a consensus, and therefore, I dare to preliminarily delete that term until further evidence could be given, ok? --GlaMax (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again "tera" in JEDEC 

message: This is very misleading seeing decimal and binary in the column headers and then base 1000 and base 1024 below.  Both of these are derived from their base units: 103 and 210--base ten (decimal) and base two (binary), respectively.  I would highly recommend reverting the table to its original state in this regard because basing everything on kilobyte and kibibyte instead of byte (the unifying unit) makes no sense.  FordGT90Concept (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense in that the exponent progression is simple and clear. Calling the units binary and decimal like this is pretty normal, I don't find it too confusing. But I personally don't care either way. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decimal and Binary 

message: A new proposal has been made at Quantities of bits. Please comment there. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal for "JEDEC" column 

message: Editors might like to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Add ronna- and quetta- to units articles?. NebY (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New prefixes