Template talk:Quantities of bits: Difference between revisions

This template was considered for deletion on 26 June 2021. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Computing Template‑class

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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Computer science Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles 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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

See also Template:Bit and byte prefixes Template:Quantities of bits Template:Quantities of bytes Template:Bitrates

Why are parentheses being used to distinguish between the decimal and binary sense of the units? This distinction is the most confusing part of the table. It deserves its own column to keep the two clearly separated. Lets join the Symbol and Name columns with parentheses instead. Those values are much less likely to be confused. Also, this helps to demonstrate that "Kibit" is a non-pronounceable symbol for kibibit just as "kb" is a non-pronounceable symbol for kilobit. This is an important distinction which was not apparent in the previous table. 12.135.134.146 22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this, as it made the table look even messier than it did before. --StuartBrady (Talk) 22:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since a byte equals 8 bits, and 1 KB can equal 1024 bytes, 1 Kb therefore can equal 1024 bits. Microsoft, for example, in their operating systems counts 1024 bits as a kb, as does most networking software for windows, such as Net.Medic, and cfosspeed, both of which I use. --Rebroad 21:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Microsoft (pretty much an expert witness in this area), they define a kilobit as 1024 bits. See here. Therefore, I'm reverting the article, until the previous reverter quotes a definitive and reputable source that claims a kilobit is NOT 1024 bits. Thanks. --Rebroad 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. That's an ad, not a reliable source.
2. It's not even internally consistent. It says kbps = 1,024 bit/s, but then says that a 56K modem is 56,000 bit/s.

PC magazine (another knowledgeable IT source) see here also says it is 1024 bits. --Rebroad 21:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Their entry is actually from [1]
• It also says "In order to avoid confusion between the decimal and binary numbers, the IEC standardized the terms kibi, mebi, gibi, tebi, pebi and exbi to represent binary numbers (compared to kilo, mega, giga, tera, peta and exa)."
• Their definition of megabit? "One million bits"
• This usage is not widely known or adhered to and most modem ratings use Kbps. For example, 56 Kbps means 56,000 bps and not 56 times 1,024 bps.

About.com also says it can equal 1024 bits (in addition to saying it often means 1000 bits). See here. --Rebroad 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh... it says: "Many people less familiar with computer networking believe one kilobit equals 1024 bits." How is that support for your position?
  • Even if 1 kilobit does equal 1000 bits, the fact that so many people use it when they mean 1024 is a fact, and should therefore be included in the article, especially when the majority of people say 1 kilobit when they are referring to 1024 bits. --Rebroad 17:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such as who? All I see are some dubious web references, probably just extending the definition from "kilobyte". I'm sure a few people use 1 kilobit = 1,024 bits, which is why it's included in the kilobit article, but it is definitely not the standard, and not the majority, and doesn't belong in this template. The burden of proof is on you to produce a majority of people. I don't think you can. If you can produce any evidence of a significant number of scientists, engineers, product manufacturers, telecommunications experts, or other relevant people using kilobit = 1,024 on a daily basis (not just defining it in a web glossary), I will change my mind. — Omegatron 18:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You state the burden of proof should be on me, without explain why. I have worked in IT for over 10 years, and with computers since 1979. All of that time, 1 kilobyte has equalled 1 byte. As 1 byte equals 8 bits, kilobits and kilobits per second can be derived in the same way. --Rebroad 14:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article actually says "This is generally untrue in networking but may be true in other contexts.". Did you not read this bit? I am not disputing that 1 kilobit sometimes equals 1000 bits, but it also sometimes equals 1024 bits "in other contexts", so why do you chose to remove this bit of information? --Rebroad 17:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many people less familiar with computer networking believe one kilobit equals 1024 bits. This is generally untrue in networking but may be true in other contexts. Specifications for today's adapters, routers and other networking equipment always use 1000-bit kilobits as the basis of their quoted data rates. The confusion arises as computer memory and disk drive manufacturers often use 1024-byte kilobytes as the basis of their quoted capacities.
    • This is how I read it, paraphrased: "Many people unfamiliar with computer networking incorrectly believe that kilobit = 1024 bits. This is definitely untrue in networking, though it might be true in other fields that I don't know about. Specifications for networking stuff always uses the 1,000 definition, and the confusion is probably caused by people mixing up kilobits and kilobytes." Do you read it differently? Kilobit usually means 1,000. This isn't the same as kilobyte, which we all agree means 1,024 most of the time and has a popular usage in software. There is no popular usage of kilobit that means 1,024. Is there? Can you prove it? — Omegatron 18:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Total Telecom (an IT communications expert) says here that a kilobit is 1024 bits. --Rebroad 21:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Dubious source. It also says a megabit is 1,048 kilobits (not 1,024), a gigabit is 1,000,000,000 bits, and a terabit is "one trillion bits".

Just because lots of people use something incorrectly doesn't make it correct. Here are some equally dubious web glossaries:

• In data communications, a kilobit is a thousand (103) bits. It's commonly used for measuring the amount of data that is transferred in a second between two telecommunication points. Kilobits per second is usually shortened to Kbps.*
  Some sources define a kilobit to mean 1,024 (that is, 210) bits. Although the bit is a unit of the binary number system, bits in data communications are discrete signal pulses and have historically been counted using the decimal number system. For example, 28.8 kilobits per second (Kbps) is 28,800 bits per second. Because of computer architecture and memory address boundaries, bytes are always some multiple or exponent of two. See kilobyte, etc. — whatis.com
• Old standard: kilobyte = 1024 bytes, kilobit = 1000 bits, New standard: kilobyte = 1000 bytes, kilobit = 1000 bits — [2]

Can you quote a reliable and definitive source that defines a kilobit as 1,024 bits? Can you name a product that uses that definition? There may be a handful, but I can't find any, and a handful of people using something doesn't make it correct or "common usage".

Kilobytes are ambiguous, but kilobits are not. — Omegatron 01:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omegatron, thank you for quoting a relevant example, the 28.8kps example. To be honest, I had not realised this. Obviously the people who decided to call 288000 bps as 28.8kbps weren't thinking straight when they did this, as a kilobit has equalled 1024 bits long before modems became this fast! What a mess we're in now. I totally agree that I would prefer everything to be unambiguous, but I can't quite see what anyone in the industry is doing about it. Some sort of deadline needs to be created where once past that point corporations will be in breach of trade descriptions etc. Why doesn't

SI create an unambigious term for decimal prefix with regards to bits and bytes? IMHO one is needed, and kilo, mega, etc need to be phased out in the interim period.... IMHO, since kilobyte and kilobit existed in binary prefix long before decimal prefix, then the binary prefix definition is the more worthy. Kilo and Mega mean 1000 and 1000000 for most things, watts, volts, grammes, etc, but when it comes to bits and bytes it should be base 2 - I mean, who's to say base 10 should be dominant, just because humans have 10 fingers? --Rebroad 17:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

But they didn't. The original usage was consistent with the SI prefixes, it was just an approximation. 1024 bytes is 1.024 kB, and it's perfectly fine to refer to it as "1 kilobit", when everyone knows that you're abbreviating. It's the fact that it was treated as an official definition and extended to higher powers that causes all the confusion. — Omegatron 18:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, I think putting both interpretations of the SI prefix names in this template fails to meet NPOV: The conventional usage of these terms varies from one field of data processing to another. In order to keep this template more generally applicable, it should simply and objectively state the official, standard definitions, which in some situations are the only ones that are in use. Then, on a case-by-case basis, entries that include this template can decide if an additional note (or template) is appropriate to describe the conventional usage in the specific field being discussed. Mditto 23:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's what we agreed on a while ago. Hence the explicit "SI prefixes"/"IEC prefixes". Remember that this is just a navigational template, not a portal. Anyone viewing the template is also inherently viewing one of the unit pages, so they are still seeing the special cases for the unit they are interested in. — Omegatron 00:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some non-dubious definitions

• NIST
  • "Because the SI prefixes strictly represent powers of 10, they should not be used to represent powers of 2. Thus, one kilobit, or 1 kbit, is 1000 bit and not 2¹⁰ bit = 1024 bit." nist.gov
• BIPM
  • "These SI prefixes refer strictly to powers of 10. They should not be used to indicate powers of 2 (for example, one kilobit represents 1000 bits and not 1024 bits)." [3]
• IEEE
  • Information for authors - "Information for IEEE Transactions, Journals, and Letters Authors"
    • TABLE OF UNITS AND QUANTITY SYMBOLS
    • "kilo-: SI prefix for 10³. The prefix kilo shall not be used to mean 2¹⁰ (that is, 1024)."
  • IEEE Standard Letter Symbols for Units of Measurement, IEEE Std 260.1-2004 (p13)
    • one megabit = 1 Mb = 10⁶ b = 1 000 000 b —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbird2 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ANSI
  • "kb (or “Kbit”) 1000 bits (kilobit)" 3. Abbreviations and Acronyms, ATIS Telecom Glossary 2000 American National Standards Institute, Inc.
• SAE
  • "Thus 1 kbit = 10³ bit = 1000 bit and not 2¹⁰ = 1024 bit, where 1 kbit is one kilobit." [4]
• RFC
  • "When metric prefixes are used with bits or with combinations including bits, those prefixes will have their metric meaning (related to decimal 1000), ..." RFC 2330 Framework for IP Performance Metrics, Section 6.1
• IEC
  • IEC 60027-2, Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics, p121
    • one kibibit = 1 Kibit = 2¹⁰ bit = 1 024 bit
    • one kilobit = 1 kbit = 10³ bit = 1 000 bit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbird2 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the template confusing. On the left it uses the symbol b for bit (as in Mb for megabit) and on the right it uses bit for the same purpose (Mibit for mebibit). Why not pick one of them and stick with it? See also

I have edited the template to standardise on bit as the symbol for the bit, in line with the consensus reached at MOSNUM. Thunderbird2 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This contradicts
  IEEE 1541
  a commonly-quoted relevant standard, specifies "b" to be the unit symbol for bit and "B" to be that for byte. This convention is also widely used in computing."

TechControl (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody agree that the computer industry has often used the SI prefixes to mean powers of 2. That is fundamentally wrong as they are defined without any ambiguity by the SI. Be it a widely commited error or not, it still is an error (from the viewpoint of the SI). They both are conventions. I argue that the most widely accepted, most consistent and clearest convention should win. SI wins on all counts. I think we should put something along the lines of "(deprecated, confusing)" besides the column title "Binary usage", however my "so dear friend" Shreevatsa reverted my changes both times. Is Wikipedia (its mecanisms) losing here? Compvis (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the table (and articles on Wikipedia) is informational, not to decide what "should win". Shreevatsa (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not informational to suggest that these powers of ten are equal to these powers of 2. It's confusing. It's not informational to not precise what is the most widely consistent with commerce, and business, most logical and clearest usage of the two. It's confusing. Compvis (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real world use of the terms is inconsistent and confusing. It sucks, but we have to deal with it. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! This is how I'm dealing with it! I think it is irresponsible intellectually to suggest that both usage have equal value. I'm not against mentionning that this has sometimes been the usage, since it's true. I'm just saying that there is absolutely NO ambiguity with the prefix kilo everywhere you look, except in the computer industry. The computer industry has virtually no rights to modify these definitions. If they want other meanings, they should create new words. The most interesting characteristics of a unit is universality, precision, and unambiguousness. Do you really think it is desirable to have two definitions of kilobyte, etc., and to always have to specify which you mean? Also I'm not against creating a new definition for a word if there is a good justification for the new meaning, or no good reason to restrain the word to the old definition. In this case, there are no good reason to have a new definition ("I don't want to use my calculator", "we've always done it that (wrong) way", and "I prefer round numbers" are not acceptable), and there are very good reasons to keep the old one. Compvis (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree, but this remark should be made on

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)#Quantities of bytes and bits. There have been intense discussions there, which resulted in the current regrettable guideline. By the way, I prefer the version of this template as here. −Woodstone (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia writing style does not affect the acknowledgment of facts. A kilobyte has 2 meanings in the real world regardless of how editors decide to use it in the text of articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree again. That the real world has created ambiguity is a fact. But that does not mean that we should not attempt to avoid ambiguity in WP. One of the purposes of WP is to explain and clarify the facts of the world. −Woodstone (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Although I probably agree with both of you) Since this is turning into a discussion about the style to use on Wikipedia, and not about what this template should look like, let's not have this discussion here on this talk page. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV doesn't suggest that we should never point out incoherence. I agree with you, however some ideas are better or more coherent than others. To not point out significant incoherences is to be intellectually dishonest. One of the reason why an idea would be less valid is if it is incoherent with itself or with previous widely adopted and reasonable conventions, such as the SI. And by the way, megabyte has 3 meanings (1000^2, 1024^2 and 1000*1024), and before I changed it the entry for Petabyte mentionned 1024 * 1000^4 bytes... I'm sure you see where this is going... Compvis (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, these issues of criticism are too complex to be covered in the template, they belong in one of the related articles or as part of a

WP:UNITS debate. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What part of the following is unclear or too complex for you? NIST SI prefixes: "Because the SI prefixes strictly represent powers of 10, they should not be used to represent powers of 2. Thus, one kilobit, or 1 kbit, is 1000 bit and not 210 bit = 1024 bit." Compvis (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's too complex for here. Please continue discussion on

Please see the Template talk:Quantities of bytes page for a discussion on how we should display the decimal and binary values in these tables. This discussion is initiated because of the edit that substantially changed the approach. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the abbreviations for the ISO/IEC 80000^[1] and JEDEC memory standards such as 100B.01 and JESD21-C.

Although its predecessor,

And the JEDEC memory standards don't have words behind the abbreviations; the abbreviations are effectively standalone: "All JEDEC standards avoid the use of the terms megabit, megabyte and gigabyte and refer to memory capacity as a number followed by the units. (64Mb, 256MB, 1GB.)"^[3]

I wanted to include this quote as a caption in the table, but I couldn't figure out how. Could someone else please take the liberty of doing so?

NOTE: I say, specifically, that I "corrected" the abbreviations not from an assumed position of prescriptivistic arrogance, but because what I was correcting was information purporting to reflect the standards. But they didn't, and the thing about de jury standards is that if something is different than what the documentation states, it's wrong. Thus, assuming my information was correct, then what I did really was to correct them.

References:

1. World Heritage Encyclopedia. "Binary Prefix" › "Specific Units of IEC 60027-2 A.2 and ISO/IEC 80000", Reproduced by World Public Library under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). Accessed 2015-11-19 (UTC-5).

2. United States, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). "Prefixes for Binary Multiples". Accessed 2015-11-19 (UTC-5).

3. World Heritage Encyclopedia. "JEDEC Memory Standards" › "Redefinition of Some Standard SI Prefixes", Reproduced by World Public Library under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). Accessed 2015-11-19 (UTC-5). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahTehCat (talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because the IEC symbol for bit is 'bit', not 'b'. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, the "world heritage encyclopedia" site has merely copied the WP articles from sometime in the past. That's what they do - they are in no way a RS. The NIST site you linked clearly shows that they use "B" for byte, but "bit" for bit. i.e. NIST specifies no abbreviation for "bit". Jeh (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the JEDEC column: there is no basis for such a column. In particular, JEDEC appears to say nothing at all about "Kbit", etc. in the binary prefix sense. Without a source, we should not be synthesizing information. —Quondum 21:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The longstanding consensus is to keep the column. I'd be fine changing the column name if evidence can be shown that JEDEC has never referring to a kilobit as defined in the table. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to show what consensus you are referring to, with diffs? You are curiously short on detail. The onus is on you to find a reliable source. —Quondum 01:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the onus is on you to gain consensus if you want to change from the status quo. Simply revert warring to force through your preferred edits is disruption. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: Can you supply a RS showing that the JEDEC symbol for 1024 bit is Kbit? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I do that? —Locke Cole • t • c 12:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are the editor insisting on the column. There was never common "consensus" for the column, only the desire to stop the edit warring about its misleading and unsourced status. There were editors who objected to its inclusion. kbrose (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I'm open to another name besides "JEDEC". Unless now the dispute is that anyone ever has referred to a "kilobit" as 1024 bits (and if that's the case, here you go). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbrose: I see we're back to claiming consensus for things again, apparently this lying thing is catching. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: Please refrain from further personal attacks, and focus instead on improving the template. If not JEDEC, what do you suggest as a header for the Kbit column? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dondervogel 2: Please refrain from lying then and I won't have to call you out on it? Deal? I would be fine with "Traditional" instead of "JEDEC". At the risk of giving you an inch and watching you take a billion kilometers, I'd be willing to admit that the usage on this is much less clear compared to kilobyte/kibibyte, etc. and would consider "Historical" but only after it has been demonstrated that kilobit/etc. are not currently being used by major manufacturers/developers to mean 1024 bits/etc. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: The personal attack is noted. Stop your infantile bullying. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is on Memory. If not for the extra space, it should be Semiconductor memory or Solid-state memory. Traditional is somewhat misleading, and JEDEC is factually wrong since JEDEC are simply using those units and prefixes, not defining them. --Zac67 (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally the column should not be included, because units of information have only one standards-based definition. The table is not about usage scenarios. But if included, traditional is misleading, because transmission rates, to name just one example, have traditionally always been used in the metric meaning. kbrose (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...factually wrong since JEDEC are simply using those units and prefixes, not defining them. It's literally in their online dictionary, unless you're suggesting dictionaries don't define things, that is precisely what JEDEC is doing. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole:JEDEC might need to define usage for their own but they are in no capacity to define those things for the world, imho. The term "JEDEC prefixes" is likely to be even more surprising and obscure to the casual reader than "IEC prefixes". --Zac67 (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

far too much weight to IEC when clearly the computing industry, media and even students and scholarly works pay them no heed. We have notability guidelines for a reason, we shouldn't be giving life to things like this that almost nobody uses. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:OR. So, my proposal is to use Memory as column label instead of JEDEC for the ambiguous binary G, M, K prefixes as long as we have to use them. --Zac67 (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Zac67: Accordingly, IEC should have significantly more authority on units and prefixes... and yet, they do not have much "authority" on these units in the real world. We're well over 20 years since these units were initially "created", and so far we have less than 2% of scholarly works using them, and less than 1% of sources overall using them (and close to 0% of newspapers/magazines using them). And yet they feature prominently in this table, as if they have equal exposure/usage as the units that have been around since the beginning. Memory suggests it wasn't used in other areas of computing when it was (heck, even JEDEC does that), but apparently Traditional is "misleading". I have serious misgivings about the IEC column remaining given the sheer lack of widespread adoption and use in our sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Traditional' is misleading, for the reasons stated by kbrose. 'Memory' is confusing because Kibit is also used for memory. And 'JEDEC' is simply incorrect because (as far as I know) JEDEC does not define the symbol Kbit for anything. Perhaps a case could be made for 'JEDEC', but only if the symbol is changed to Kb. I see two possible solutions:

• Remove the column
• Revert to 'JEDEC' and use the symbol Kb in that column

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dondervogel 2: JEDEC defines "K" here. The "kilo (K)" prefix is further defined here. The implication is that Kb (Kbit, Kilobit) and KB (Kbyte, Kilobyte) are natural constructions with those prefixes. (Lowercase b" is defined as "bit" here, and uppercase "B" is defined as "byte" here). Removing the column absent any discussion of whether or not it has any widespread historical usage is unacceptable. I am open to discussing alternative titles for the column. The IEC units are the outlier here IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JEDEC for example is one such industry player who follows IEC norms, because they explicitly defer to IEC in their documents by stating that the binary usage of metric prefix is deprecated and the new prefixes are available. Either you are completely ignorant about the use of IEC prefixes, or, more likely, your personal sentiments drive you to want to mislead and gaslight others into your hate of these units, which are used in thousands of cutting-edge applications and computer administration tools these days. The denial is remarkable and embarrassing, like science deniers and such. Just what is the cause of your hatred, please leave it out of Wikipedia. kbrose (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbrose: JEDEC ... defer to IEC in their documents by stating that the binary usage of metric prefix is deprecated... this is demonstrably false. They clearly and unambiguously define kilo/mega/giga/etc. and then note that a standards body has come up with an "alternative system". They quote that document which itself states that the classic units are "deprecated", however, JEDEC does not state this and says the defined units within the JEDEC dictionary reflect "common usage". As to your attacks on me personally, it's adorable, it truly is, that you cling to this notion that your "holy unit" is somehow relevant when you make baseless claims like [the units] are used in thousands of cutting-edge applications and computer administration tools these days. Stop embarrassing yourself with such nonsense. Apple, Microsoft and other major players in the computing industry continue to use the traditional prefixes with no sign they intend to stop. Needlessly confusing our readers to push your nonsense is the very definition of crank philosophy. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]