Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive B6

message: Okay, so some folks are now going back and systematically changing prefixes in articles from IEC back to common usage, possibly using the new "defer to the first author" justification.  How is this any better than what Sarenne caught so much flak for doing?  Didn't we agree that we wouldn't make masses of edits to articles until this was resolved?  Is it right to go and start making the masses of edits again as soon as the guideline text is changed a bit?  What is the point of all this talk about not making mass changes if that's exactly what users do as soon as the text shifts slightly in their favor?
This is sheer madness. -- mattb 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any "mass changes" anything like the mass disruptive edits made by the user Sarenne, I do see changes in specific articles where it is obvious those systems do not use binary prefixes or where editors have expressed their objections to using binary prefixes. Those changes are better because they have consensus, i.e. the don't rely on interpretation of a guideline that no longer has consensus. Therefore those changes have been made to improve Wikipedia. I thought we agreed the edit warring has to stop? What would be sheer madness is if someone (or more likely the anonymous editor from an open proxy) now reverted those changes back to binary prefixes because that would be edit warring. Fnagaton 10:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I've just noticed a batch of anonymous reverts. This time by a Wanadoo France user. Fnagaton 10:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are these  changes as well, which led me to find a wonderful edit war going on with the Atari articles which have now been locked. - X201 11:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were an admin I would look long and hard at the IP logs since I think it would then become clear that a specific user from the same block of IPs who also has a history of similar binary prefix changes is sometimes using an anonymous proxy to make their changes but has occasionally forgotten to use their anonymous proxy before editing. A block of IPs would need checking because a lot of ISPs these days assign IPs dynamically from their ranges. Also if I were an admin I would put a request in to get specific OS, browser and cookie data which can also help narrow down people who do use an anonymous proxy but use the same machine. Fnagaton 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I did revert some of sarenne change too... But, at your express  request, 2 days ago, I have stopped for now, pending some stabilisation/mediation here. Shmget 13:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Would it be feasible to get semi-protection (no anon account edits) on all the articles where the anonymous proxy single use account has edited? Fnagaton 14:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More systematic changes 

message: * Considering that IEC notation are standardized, but still to this date rarely used in the real world.
* Considering that there exist a large body of source that do not use IEC notation
* Considering that it is probable that IEC notation will become more and more common
* Considering that the transition will probably last many more years
I propose the following solution:
Using template /// see Template:KiB for exmeple
with the appropriate addition in common.css:
 
/* --  Usual + IEC -- */
 
 span.kib:after { content:" KB (KiB)"; display:inline; }
 span.mib:after { content:" MB (MiB)"; display:inline; }
 span.gib:after { content:" GB (GiB)"; display:inline; }
 span.tib:after { content:" TB (TiB)"; display:inline; }
Then a user that want to see only IEC notation can add in his USER/monoblock.css
 span.kib:after { content:" KiB"; display:inline; }
 span.mib:after { content:" MiB"; display:inline; }
 span.gib:after { content:" GiB"; display:inline; }
 span.tib:after { content:" TiB"; display:inline; }
And a user that want to see only usual notation can add in his USER/monoblock.css
 span.kib:after { content:" KB"; display:inline; }
 span.mib:after { content:" MB"; display:inline; }
 span.gib:after { content:" GB"; display:inline; }
 span.tib:after { content:" TB"; display:inline; }
I believe that this solution has the following advantages:
* Render edit war un-necessary. Since one can freely chose his favorite representation, there is no rational reason to edit war on it anymore.
* Allow for a long term transition. IEC notation have been standardized almost a decade ago, still their adoption is very slow. Until they are in widespread use, usual notation are still what most reader use and understand. But this template system will allow, in a few year, to transition to IEC-only by default, if and when IEC notation are pervasive.
* Allow for strict standard conformance right away, for the readers that feel so inclined.
* As a bonus, allow for strict traditional use for the readers that are allergic to IEC notation.
Note: we could also create template for hard drive size, where the notation mixed would be something like 100 GB (95.37 GiB) for mixed notation, where the GiB value would be automatically calculated. I haven't written it yet, but I believe it is doable.
Note2: If this is adopted, it might even be possible to have a user preference setting for this, to avoid the nasty cut and paste of css. - Shmget 19:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even tested the template? It seems to reference "diplay" [sic]. I'm pretty unconvinced that this IEC byte unit notation is going to become more common. It also seems to me a bad idea to have content that depends on CSS. People still use non-CSS HTML rendering tools (especially for automated stuff), and the expectation is you might lose formatting, but not actual *words*. So I don't think using "content:" in a good idea. Perhaps more fundamentally, I'm not convinced this should be user-selectable. jhawkinson 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes I tested it, but I didn;t catch that typo, (fixed now). You are right, content in CCS is a bad idea, I didn't realize that. I'm unsure about the future of the IEC notation, but I am sure that there are very divided opinion about it, so finding a way for the two/three camps to each have it 'their' way without forcing the other to comply to their respective ways seems appealing to me. I'll be looking for another way - Shmget 19:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template with CSS proposition (withdrawn, css/content issue) 

message: The current WP:MOSNUM, regarding binary prefix, recommend to "stay with established usage, and follow the lead of the first major contributor to the article." and also suggest that "The use of parentheses for binary prefixes "Example: 256 KB (KiB)".
As WP:MOSNUM state , "There is currently no consensus as to whether common binary prefixes or the IEC-recommended prefixes should be used in Wikipedia articles.".
That lead to chronic edit war and lengthy arguments. The acceptance of the IEC notation has been slow, both in the industry and in the public at large, and it is reasonable to think that is will still take significant time, years in not decades, before the usage is settled.
This proposal attempt to eliminate few of the most commons objections raised during the debates on this topic. These are, in no particular order
* Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore exactitude and precise standard conformance are paramount
* Wikipedia is the reflect of the world as it is not as it 'should' be.
* Legacy hardware have all their reference materials written using usual notation therefore IEC notation are confusing
* Non-specialist user is confused when seeing S.I prefix used with a different value than their expected meaning
and of course, at the end of the day, a lot of the arguing is motivated by a very strong force : personal taste.
The following templates Template:KiB Template:MiB Template:GiB Template:TiB are proposed.
They take 2 positional parameters. The first one is the size itself, a number. the second is an optional unit.
For example:
If an editor has no preference he would defer to the template, which should reflect the then current consensus. In this current version of the tempalte version that would give:
  -> 16 KB (KiB)
If an editor whish to use the traditional notation, he would use
 -> 16 KB
A benefit of the few extra characters is that it make apparent to any other editors that the editor knew that KB was a binary prefix in this context, and that he belive that it still should be represented as traditional notation.
But the main feature of these templates is that they are wirtten in such a way that a user can customized his environment in order to see these units in his favorite representation..
Indeed, thanks the good work of User:Mike Dillon, a small piece of javascript can be used by any user who want to see only his favorite notation.
for example:
var byteSuffixes = {
    "kib": "KiB",
    "mib": "MiB",
    "gib": "GiB",
    "tib": "TiB"
};
importScript('User:Mike Dillon/Scripts/byteQuantities.js');
to have only IEC  unit displayed
or 
var byteSuffixes = {
    "kib": "KB",
    "mib": "MB",
    "gib": "GB",
    "tib": "TB"
};
importScript('User:Mike Dillon/Scripts/byteQuantities.js');
to have only traditional unit display.
Note that it will not impact the place where the unit HAS to be one way or the other for the article to make sens, like for instance in binary prefix, since only the text using the template will be impacted. 
The proposal is as follows:
* That these templates be mentioned in WP:MOSNUM
* That on pages relating to legacy hardware/software, the main editors be encouraged to use them in order to indicate the consensus on the page and to clarify to other editor that the choice of unit is purposeful and not an oversight.
* That editors in general do not fight the usage of such templates, so long as their introduction do not change the normal appearance of the page (that is without any javascript helpers)
* That the existence of the technique based on javascript be mentioned so that users that have a strong opinion on the matter can satisfy their preferences.
The current form (the way it present the unit) of the Template is not necessarily part of this proposal. The only characteristic of the template that is part of the proposal is the use of the class attribute in order to make the javascript substitution technique works cleanly.
-- Shmget 03:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for byte quantities 

message: It occurs to me that some of these binary prefix arguements could just as easily be applied to entirely unrelated problems. For example, some americans say, "check", when they are referring to what I'd call a "cheque". Similarly, "checking account" instead of "chequing account", etc. etc.
Irrefutably, "cheque" and "chequing" are absolutely far less ambiguous of terms than "check" and "checking". The latter requires knowing the context before you can determine the meaning; the former does not.
So, just wondering, how many of you would support an absolute policy where "check" and "checking", when used in that context, could never be used in wikipedia? And that any changes to "cheque" or "chequing" had to be accepted?
For what it's worth, "cheque" is the only correct spelling, as far as I'm concerned, but I still wouldn't want a policy requiring its use. Bladestorm 18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is dealt with quite adequately in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues; in short, both American and British spelling are acceptable. This would be a much more reasonable course of action than to force the generally unknown newly invented prefixes, which would be not unlike forgoing American and British spellings both in order to require Finnegan's Wake spellings on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 05:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call it curiosity 

message: I've come up with a different method for a binary prefix template.  Input is in exact bytes value, and parser functions output the quantity in binary (the "i" is optional), SI, and exact.  The template isn't ready for production use at all since the decimal place needs to manually adjusted and the CSS classes aren't implemented to hide the other output.  See User:Dispenser/Binary Units for a working example.  —Dispenser 22:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different binary template 

message: I sorry to bring up this flame topic again but I feel that it needs to be addressed.  The Xbox 360 uses DVD-9s which hold 8.5 (9.0 or 7.92 GiB if not using  EFMPlus) of data.  The problem now here is is the Microsoft reserves a bit of space on the disc.  This is quoted as 7 GB , but if you look at all the other information it becomes clear that MS is using binary units in all contexts (there was a better source that state the total disc capacity was 7.9 GB).  Now the problem comes in stating this in the article.  Obviously, stating it as 
:...Only 7 GiB out of the 8.5 GB is available to developers...
is unaccepted by the majority of editors as this is "correct" to GB.  But the question is how to make it clear to the reader which unit we are referring to?  Since we have two different usages out of the horses mouth.  —Dispenser 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about using the terms found in the reliable sources relevant to the article and disambiguate using parentheses? It is worth noting that some of these games sites are not really reliable sources because for things like the exact measurements for storage values tend to be overinflated to score points against rival console vendors, are sometimes inaccurate marketing rubbish or vary depending on exactly what protection is used. The really reliable sources tend to be covered by NDA. Fnagaton 08:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the question, but there seem to be so many options. You could give the amount of space that is reserved (is that 942KB?), you could use consistent units ("only 7GB out of 7.9GB"), you could use a fraction or a percentage. It seems odd, btw, to use "only" if you're talking about a 12% difference; is it really significant?. jhawkinson 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The PS3 fanboys like to tout that blu-ray holds more.  So the 1 Gig or 1.5 Gigs wasted becomes important to them.  So we should convert the units then?  —Dispenser 22:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binary and SI prefixes (MS topic) 

message: The use of KB (kilobyte) and MB (megabyte) for binary values is more than common usage, there is 50 years industry practice codified in ANSI/IEEE and other standards. Kilo (K) as 1024 and Mega (M) as 1,048,576 were defined over 20 years ago in ANSI/IEEE Std 1084-1986. KB, MB and GB (as binary prefixes) are defined in IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000. 
The computer industry sponsors standards organizations and adheres to published standards. In addition to traditional groups like the IEEE Standards Association and JEDEC there are many other ad hoc standards groups such as Universal Serial Bus , PC Card , and Serial ATA . The industry has just ignored the IEC 60027/IEEE 1541 binary prefix standard. In 1984 the ANSI/IEEE Std 91-1984 and IEC 60617-12 standards recommended that everyone start drawing schematic symbols of AND gates as a square box with an ampersand in it. Changing something that the industry thinks is working is very difficult.
There is no obligation to use the IEC and ANSI/IEEE binary prefix standard. Every IEEE standard has these disclaimers. "Use of an IEEE Standard is wholly voluntary." "The existence of an IEEE Standard does not imply that there are no other ways to produce, test, measure, purchase, market, or provide other goods and services related to the scope of the IEEE Standard." After the ASME vs Hydrolevel antitrust case  was upheld by the Supreme Court standards organizations are abundantly cautious about imposing their standards.
I have been trying to measure the adoption of the IEC binary prefixes in the computer world. I looked at the IEC binary prefix use by news, technical and reference publications; manufactures of computer components, semiconductors, and computer systems; operating system and application software; retail sales of computers and software; and other standards organization. The only significant usage is in elite standards groups. I would have the say the adoption of the IEC binary prefixes is minuscule and static. See Talk:Binary_prefix#IEC_binary_prefix_adoption
An interesting point is that the flash memory card and hard disk drive manufactures use MB to mean 1,000,000 bytes as the IEC recommends. Both groups have been sued for misrepresenting the capacity of the products. The plaintiffs acknowledged the IEC standard exist but stated the computer industry ignores them. Companies that use MB as 220 have not had legal problems.
I propose that we add a new paragraph to the binary prefix section clarifying that the "common" binary prefixes are defined by ANSI and IEEE standards. This paragraph would go between the existing first and second paragraph. 
Use of the prefixes kilo, mega, etc., and the symbols K, and M, etc to specify binary multiples is based on 50 years of industry practice and has been codified in ANSI/IEEE standards for 20 years. The predominate use of these prefixes by technical publications, computer hardware and software companies is reflected in IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000. 
-- SWTPC6800 23:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify standards used for binary prefixes