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]

Should it be there at all?

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]

@Dondervogel 2: Calling things a personal attack that you don't agree with doesn't magically make them personal attacks. Stop misusing that phrase. The solution to your "problem" is to stop engaging in the behavior that earns you that label. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: I am through with your childish tactics and hostile editing, and this is the last time I will respond to a personal attack, or any other hostile post. I urge you to restrict your editing to constructive posts, like everyone else on this page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dondervogel 2: Can you direct my attention to any part of this whole debacle where you've been constructive (and I would define "constructive" here very narrowly; are you actually working to improve the encyclopedia or are you just pushing a point of view that deviates from 99% of the world)? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'JEDEC' or 'Memory'?

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]

I have never disputed that JEDEC defines 'K' in the binary sense. It also defines 'b' (not 'bit') as the symbol for bit, which is why the association of 'Kbit' with JEDEC does not make sense. There are problems with 'Memory' and 'Traditional' as well, so where does that leave us? One possible solution is to replace Kbit with Kb (as I previously suggested). Another is to remove the Kbit column entirely. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also defines 'b' (not 'bit') as the symbol for bit... why on Earth would they need to define "bit" as a symbol for itself...? Another is to remove the Kbit column entirely.. well that doesn't fly, see the Intel source below which has used both. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The IEC symbol for bit is ‘bit’. The IEC/ISO symbols for kilo- and kibi- are ‘k’ and ‘Ki’, respectively. The corresponding symbols for kilobit (1000 bit) and kibit (1024 bit) are therefore kbit and Kibit.
  That’s how it works
  .
• What the post below shows is that Intel either changed its symbol for 1024 bits from ‘Kbit’ to ‘Kb’ or it can’t make up its mind. The fact that it is unclear makes Intel an unreliable source. I conclude you do not have a reliable source to justify continued use of ‘Kbit’, so the only way that column can stay is to switch to ‘Kb’, as preferred by JEDEC.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

That’s how it works. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:13, 11 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]

Some reactions

• The use of K, M, G with their binary meanings is deprecated by all major internationsl standards bodies, and JEDEC acknowledge that deprecation. BIPM deprecates use of K, M, G with their binary meanings^[1], as do other standards bodies (eg ISO^[2], IEEE^[3], NIST^[4]). If the Kbit column stays at all (an open question) it should be labelled 'deprecated'. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Raymond Chen, one of the longest working employees at Microsoft as part of the team that works on the shell/Windows Explorer, the real world has largely ignored these self-important standards bodies. If they stand on the roof of the Burj Khalifa and scream about kibibit, mebibit, gibibit, tebibit, et al. they would likely have better luck convincing people of the world to use those terms than they've experienced thus far. If the Kbit column stays at all (an open question) it should be labelled 'deprecated'... surely you've mixed up the IEC column by accident, and that's OK. It's the outlier here with little to no practical real world use. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The IEC prefixes are part of the International System of Quantities, the system of quantities associated with the International System of Units.
• The IEC prefixes are by far the most widely used method of disambiguation in scientific publications. The suggestion to remove that column lacks even a hint of credibility.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IEC prefixes are by far the most widely used method of disambiguation in scientific publications.. I'm lucky we're at {{Quantities of bits}} and not {{Quantities of bits used for disambiguation}}. Clearly as a unit of measure with scant use by anyone but the standards bodies pushing them, they have no place in an encyclopedia that documents the world as it is. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intel

So as recently as 2008, Intel (they're this small manufacturer of microchips, they're used in a few devices by companies interested in that sort of thing), had a definition in this PDF for kilobit, megabit and gigabit in a nicely laid out table (page iv in PDF, reproduced below):

Other Common Notation

But I know not everyone thinks Intel is a relevant player in the computing industry anymore, so maybe them using these terms like this doesn't hold much weight. After all, IEC, and I mean everyone has heard of IEC before (can I get a high-five?), they've standardized an alternative system of units for computing technology. Obviously we'd be fools to listen to Intel, or Apple, or Microsoft or any of those manufacturers. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case there's any concern over the 2008 date of that file, here's a recent specification from April 2021 (also page iv). This file doubles down on Mb (for megabit) and Kb (for kilobit). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, Intel have not double down on anything. Instead they switched horses from Kbit to Kb. Yet another reason to drop 'Kbit' from the template. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you're moving the goalposts. First the column needed to be "deprecated" or removed completely, now you're nitpicking on Kb vs Kbit? Let me know when you settle on what it is you're arguing for so I can meet your "requirements" instead of trying to switch it around after I've invested time in the discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use by specific companies

Also worth mentioning a Google search of site:intel.com kibibyte currently turns up three hits (one of them on community.intel.com, an end user forum), while site:intel.com kilobyte turns up 1,500 hits. I've also added microsoft.com as a point of comparison, and included results for bits and bytes units. I'll try to expand this as I get time.

Looking at these results turned up this interesting article by Raymond Chen, a developer with Microsoft who has worked on Microsoft Windows since some of its earliest days on the shell/Windows Explorer. In the article he explains why Microsoft has not embraced the IEC prefixes. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any comparison of this type is meaningless, first of all because in documentation the names of units are not usually written out in full and secondly because KB, MB etc are often used in their decimal sense and these are included in the count.−Woodstone (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It demonstrates that the IEC units are used very rarely, or not at all. To your first point, clearly the names are written out in full in some instances to register thousands of times. For the second point, that's irrelevant: if the IEC units were being used with any significant amount we'd see more than a handful (or certainly greater than zero) of uses. Remember, the onus for inclusion of IEC is on those proposing to have it on such prominent display. I'm just trying to help demonstrate how comically bad the situation is for anyone not involved in these discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memory or Traditional

The previous discussion seemed to have a (slight) bias less averse to Memory, so I went ahead and changed the binary K/M/B/T column that way. That edit had been in place for a month until today, consistency with the sister templates broken again. Possibly we can reach a consensus here before another edit war is started.

I'd like to ask you which variant is more agreeable to you? Please give a clear Memory, Traditional, Either, or Neither, feel free to elaborate, but please keep your vote concise. --Zac67 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memory - bit as a unit is in common use as a size only for semiconductor or solid-state memory. File sizes aren't commonly referred to in kilo/mega/gigabit. Using traditional here at least borders on

WP:OR. --Zac67 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Memory is better. We need a short way of summarising "Traditionally used for applications in computer memory". 'Traditional' is too vague. Consistency with other templates also matters. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JEDEC is my preferred version, because that's what the supporting source/definition comes from, Traditional second. Memory is inaccurate and the least appropriate.

b} 11:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Traditional – It's widely used for file sizes, so Memory is too restrictive; traditional fits better since usage grew that way.−Woodstone (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Couple of responses

• @Headbomb: I can live with JEDEC if
  • the Memory/Traditional/JEDEC section of the table is edited to omit the 'tera' row and the 'Kbit' column (because JEDEC defines neither), leaving the entries for 'Kb', 'Mb' and 'Gb' only.
  • the sister templates are updated for consistency
• @Woodstone: 'Traditional' doesn't work because 'kilobit' and 'megabit' are traditionally used to mean one thousand and one million bits, respectively. They had this decimal meaning before the binary one became popular and they still have this meaning today. And in my experience file sizes are mostly reported in bytes, not bits.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional is in the context of computing.

b} 16:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Part of this discussion is the consistency between the various templates. Bit and byte should use the same headers. File sizes are often in binary multiples, so "memory" is a bit of a misnomer for them. I'm not convinced that there was a clear transition from decimal to binary use. It was more the sloppy use for convenience that became a tradition.−Woodstone (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal: Legacy

I'm not at all comfortable with 'Traditional', for the reasons given, and even less so when the other two templates use 'Memory'; the three templates should be consistent. I also agree the terms are not limited to memory, so how about 'Legacy' as the heading for the old "JEDEC" column, for all 3 templates? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Legacy (even though it's not likely to go through) – Dondervogel 2, please make sure you add a note to the other templates' talk pages, too. --Zac67 (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Done. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - sounds like a good name for the column; better than "memory", which is too limiting; more neutral than "traditional" good choice for consistency in templates. −Woodstone (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No because Legacy implies it's deprecated, while it's not.

b} 14:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Uhhh, binary use of SI prefixes is very clearly deprecated by the international standards bodies BIPM (SI Brochure, 9th edition, p143[1]) and ISO (ISO 80000-1:2009, p7^[2]). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated also by IEC (obviously), IEEE, NIST, ISO, SAE, and many more – see Binary prefix#IEC prefixes. --Zac67 (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talking real world here.

b} 18:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Support - The status of these is in fact deprecated, which does not imply non-use. kbrose (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen no further comments for over a week, I implemented the change. For consistency, I will now update the 2 sister templates. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resumption of discussion in September 2022

Oppose, I agree with Headbomb "Traditional" was accurate as it is still used, and has been since the dawn of computing. "Legacy" implies it is falling or has fallen out of disuse, which it has most demonstrably not done. I'll note again that Dondervogel is again being disruptive, re-animating discussions nearly two months after the last reasonable "participation" in an attempt to try and wear down and catch his opponents off-guard. I'll be reverting this change for the disruption it is. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole Your latest edits contradict this discussion. Please return the templates to their previous state – as discussed here – and start a discussion for your version. Since this is a controversial issue we need consent before substantial changes. --Zac67 (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. It is unacceptable to reward disruption like this, and I will not do so. Further, I challenge anyone supporting this change to provide a source that refers to those units as "legacy". Otherwise, you're all engaging in

WP:OR. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll note again that Locke Cole is again being disruptive, re-animating discussions 10 months after the last reasonable "participation" in an attempt to try and wear down and catch his opponents off-guard. I'll be reverting this change for the disruption it is. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice copy and paste. You're still disruptive. You can clearly see I was fully engaged above, but you didn't ping any of the prior participants above because you knew you'd lose. That's not consensus, it's just plain disruption. And I won't let you be rewarded for it. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the consensus, the onus is on you to establish a new one. You made a

bold edit and were reverted. Now it's time to discuss here. Pinging all editors involved in this thread: @Quondum:@Locke Cole:@Kbrose:@Zac67:@Woodstone:@Headbomb: Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

In the face of a lack of consensus, we should revert to the oldest stable version and use JEDEC, which is accurate and dodges these issues.

b} 01:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

JEDEC does not have the same international standing as ISO, IEC, or BIPM. Nevertheless, I have never objected to JEDEC as a matter of principle. It's just a matter of

undue weight. If it is acceptable to others, it is acceptable to me if we remove Tbit from the table, and we update the sister templates accordingly. As a matter of process, you have not mentioned an important detail: It would help tremendously if Locke Cole were to stop edit warring. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

JEDEC is the authority on memory and other standards. It is not undue weight, it is accurate.

b} 09:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

SSD), none at all for magnetic storage, telecommunications, networking, software, and many other areas where "bits and bytes" are used. Claiming its authority for all those areas is giving undue weight, I'm afraid. --Zac67 (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Renaming JEDEC 'legacy' is wrong. Period.

b} 15:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ISO/IEC/BIPM do not have any standing whatsoever on these units, international, national, or even intergalactic. I think even aliens still use gigabytes for binary. And I'm not edit warring, I'm simply reverting disruption. As I will continue to do so long as you remain disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still awaiting those sources for "Legacy". I note with interest that you've ignored that, probably because you know you can't. On Wikipedia, when someone adds unsourced "facts" to articles or text, we remove it if it's clearly not true until sources are provided. I look forward to your sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, traditional does not imply that it is still in use, only that it was once used. Legacy means that something old is still used, without telling exactly why. Deprecated implies that a new standard has been formed, but the old is still in use and commonly recognized. kbrose (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, traditional to me is synonymous with "defacto", which I would accept as well. "Legacy" implies that there is some movement to deprecate and supplant it, which is demonstrably not true. IEC has unsuccessfully attempted to force these units onto society. So far very few people have actually taken to them (to the tune of <1%). That it's listed in this table at all is frankly infuriating because it's a neologism. It does not have widespread use or support and the IEC column does not belong here. "Deprecated" has similar connotations to "Legacy", and presupposes that organizations are moving away from them (when the opposite is true). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The proper description instead of legacy is deprecated. JEDEC was wrong from the beginning, accepted because everyone got tired of the issue. JEDEC is the last hope of the refuseniks of unambiguous units, because JEDEC docs do list the deprecated usage as acceptable. JEDEC does NOT set standards for units. Their documents simply state common practice in the industry, and this is clearly documented in their work products, as has been pointed out in the past. They make it clear that the binary use is DEPRECATED, but still in use. This is what deprecated means, something else is preferred in place of traditional use. Legacy has similar meaning but does not imply as strongly that a new standard is accepted. kbrose (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JEDEC sets JEDEC standards, and JEDEC standards are still used. They aren't deprecated standards, and they aren't legacy standards.

b} 17:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

They may set standards, but not for units of measure. That is not their purview. They accept units defined by the appropriate bodies, and the JEDEC docs state exactly that when they state that the binary use is deprecated, but still in use by their members. JEDEC members are free to use metric measures as they do for many other products than memory. JEDEC does not standardize the use of units for these products, per their own explanation. JEDEC explicitly states "this practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated". kbrose (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If IEC/ISO/etc are so reliable for units of measure, can you point me to all the major organizations utilizing mebibit/mebibyte, gibibit/gibibyte, etc? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbrose: Also, please stop being dishonest with your selective quoting of JEDEC. Here is the FULL QUOTE: The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage. IEEE/ASTM SI 10‑1997 states "This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated." source Note that they first state that their definitions reflect common usage, and they go on to quote IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 which says that, NOT JEDEC. Are you and Dondervogel's positions so weak that you must LIE to try and force your way through? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: reflect common usage, and not a binding specification or definition. Exactly my point. Nobody disputes that the deprecated use is still common. JEDEC recognizes that as does everyone else. But they stated that this is DEPRECATED, because new definitions exist, and the old ones are confusing. People don't change over night. Unit changes historically have taken decades or generations to evolve. But the new and young programmers overwhelming adopt these new units in countless new software applications and new operating systems. Your continued personal attacks are only useful for you to distract from the actual subject matter, for which you have no real arguments, other than your personal antagonism against the truth, and accepted standards. kbrose (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But they stated that this is DEPRECATED Where do they state this? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued personal attacks It's not a personal attack if it's true. for which you have no real arguments I have plenty of real arguments, I note with interest that you lot have yet to reply to those because you're actually projecting here: YOU don't have any real arguments. accepted standards You never mentioned your interest in stand-up comedy. I wish you well on that endeavor. People don't change over night. Unit changes historically have taken decades or generations to evolve. It's been 23 years since they adopted this as a "standard". Wikipedia even briefly adopted it in

WP:MOSNUM before walking it back because, shockingly, nobody was following along and it only confused readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"They may set standards, but not for units of measure." They do, in the industry they are relevant, i.e. semi conductor memory.

b} 20:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose - When I see "traditional" I think of things that were done a long time ago and are still in common use (eg, like the traditional roast on Christmas day). When I see "legacy" I think of things that were once used but are no longer used (eg Windows 10 has legacy support of Win95 programs, even though new Win95 programs are rare).  Stepho  talk  01:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional is wrong for the same old reason that the usage is in fact not traditional in the general sense, which this table represents. It was only used primarily for storage, not for many other contexts. The only correct designation is DEPRECATED, as correctly stated by JEDEC, because it implies that a new standard exists, but old usage has not seized. Merriam-Webster supports this as well: to withdraw official support for or discourage the use of (something, such as a software product) in favor of a newer or better alternative. Legacy is wrong for similar reasons, as it implies perhaps that no one is using the old anymore. kbrose (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a different sense of traditional than me. I think of traditional as something that has been around for quite a while and is still in reasonably common use (as per previous example of traditional Christmas roast). The binary sense of units like 4 Mbytes is still extremely common at many levels. I fully accept that JEDEC is doing their level best to deprecate it. I also fully accept that practically everyone else is saying "yaaaaawn" and ignoring them. I work in designing embedded devices and even when selecting memory chips we talk about 4 Mbytes or 32 Mbits - we never say 4 MebiBytes or 32 Mebibits in spite of the memory chip datasheets saying it that way. Any word along the lines of "legacy" or "deprecated" that implies that the use of 4 Mbytes chips is on the way out is trying to read a future that isn't here yet (if ever).  Stepho  talk  05:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing your sense of traditional. It is not wrong. It is not comprehensive, because the usage is only traditional for memory or storage, not for many other contexts of use, many of which don't even need to be measured in binary, as is so convenient for digital memory. The term deprecated is universal. Whether people today ignore it, is not of primary importance, People ignore rules and laws all the time, but we don't consider that in documentation. There is huge momentum behind keeping the status quo for memory, because of cost of retooling and perception and whatever. Look how long it has taken for acceptance of metric units in health care for example in the US, or the adoption of the metric system even. In software the move away from traditional binary usage is well underway. Not so much in other areas, such as established operating systems, like Windows, ugh. People don't change easily or quickly and you will probably use the old terms until you die, but the next generations may not, because the data sheets and text books and scholarly papers have changed, and they learn the new terms in school. But the table is not supposed to reflect people's habits. It is a general statement of the definitions based on standards. And therefore, the correct term is deprecated. What is used traditionally is well known, and is probably discussed at nauseam, yaawn, in all of the articles that use the table. Deprecated does not read the future, it is the PAST decision made by the standards bodies. Deprecated does not imply non-usage, in fact it acknowledges a transition period in underway, but no one knows for how long and that cannot be documented. If you want the header to be traditional, then it should say traditional for memory. A similar labeling was in fact in the table at one time, but of course the refuseniks of unambiguous units fought and bullied it away with their incivility and editing wars. kbrose (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Intel apparently didn't get the memo from the IEC about a gigabyte not being 1,024 megabytes. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued distractions and bullying are not constructive. kbrose (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbrose: Still trying to find that source that has JEDEC saying these units are deprecated? Or you just gonna keep repeating that lie and hope nobody else notices? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CUT YOUR BULLSHIT AND POLEMIC. You know exactly the reference. Quote from JEDEC Standard 100B.01, page 8:

The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage. IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states "This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated." Further confusion results from the popular use of the megabyte representing 1 024 000 bytes to define the capacity of the 1.44-MB high-density diskette. An alternative system is found in Amendment 2 to IEC 60027-2: Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology – Part 2. kbrose (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The JEDEC text Kbrose quoted is online for anyone to verify at https://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/dictionary?title=mega+(M). In light of that quote, using "JEDEC" as table header does not seem reasonable. --Zac67 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the timeline. (I was deliberately staying away from this page while ANI took its course, but your edit makes it possible to resume the debate).

Thanks also for pointing out the link. I still think one can make a case for any of deprecated, JEDEC and legacy, with potentially different caveats applying to each.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dondervogel 2: Thank you for restoring the timeline. And destroying the threaded conversation... I've restored it. Please stop moving my comments and replies of others against our wishes. Thanks also for pointing out the link I, too, am grateful for the link. It clearly shows what we've known for years: JEDEC has not deprecated these units. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zac67: Can you point out where JEDEC says the terms are deprecated? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: Please have someone read the linked passage out loud to you. JEDEC clearly states that their use reflects common usage only (which no one here denies) and continues to cite the binary mega deprecation by IEEE. JEDEC use units and prefixes, and it's not their place to define or deprecate them, the cite explicitly reflects that. Accordingly, the JEDEC header is misleading for readers. You obviously haven't registered that the ultimate authority for units and prefixes is IEC.

Regarding your repetitive messing with the chronological order here: you move a (possibly intermediate) result way to the bottom where it doesn't make sense (presumably intentionally). How is anyone not participating here supposed to understand the logic? Yet again, this behavior shows your lack of communicative competence. --Zac67 (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

URI". These links are typically plaintext. The link you cited above (which I also cited in the diff from earlier) is this: https://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/dictionary?title=mega+(M)

. You'll note I've highlighted the word "dictionary" in the URI. A "dictionary", in case you didn't know, is where words are "defined". The page itself also says "Dictionary" at the top, and the page title as defined in the HTML for the page states it is a "dictionary". and it's not their place to define You sure about that? You obviously haven't registered that the ultimate authority for units and prefixes is IEC. Apparently neither has 99% of the world.

Regarding your repetitive messing with the chronological order here The order was fine for many replies

civility, I'll take that as a complement. Maybe next time get someone to read it to you out loud. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Kbrose: I'm grateful you've quoted this. Can you point out where JEDEC says they (JEDEC) deprecated the terms? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are the options for the disputed heading?

Two editors are questioning the consensus reached in November 2021 for replacing 'JEDEC' with 'legacy'. Can we identify a new consensus in September 2022? Let's use this space to identify the options. The most promising ones I see are JEDEC (the version we started with, and remained in place between 2017 and 2020) and legacy (the heading that was stable for about 10 months before the present dispute). Are there any other options worth including in the list? Pinging Headbomb Kbrose Locke Cole Stepho-wrs WoodstoneZac67 Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The heading in place before the November 21 edits was Memory. I'd rather continue with that instead of the current JEDEC. Looking at the continuing discussion seeming to lead nowhere, I'd seriously suggest returning to that revision for the time being. As stated above, JEDEC is factually wrong as they quote the deprecation of those ambiguous prefixes and have no authority for defining those things to start with. --Zac67 (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to go for a complete review of options, included should be at least (in alphabetical order):

• Common Usage
• Customary
• Deprecated
• JEDEC
• Legacy
• Memory
• Traditional

Let's delay opinions and arguments till after the list is agreed.−Woodstone (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose it, but "Historical" might also be valid on that list (in my view that would be the same as "Deprecated" or "Legacy"). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the temporary restoration of "Memory" pending a consensus-based change. As stated above, JEDEC is factually wrong as they quote the deprecation of those ambiguous prefixes and have no authority for defining those things to start with. You're telling me that JEDEC (Joint Electron Device Engineering Council), the organizational standards body behind RAM specifications and storage specifications like MMC, that JEDEC have no authority for defining those things? Do you have a source for that statement or is it just your personal opinion? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this discussion also affects other templates, and we had a nearly identical discussion last year, it seems prudent to make sure we ping folks that were involved in Template_talk:Quantities_of_bytes#Recent_Edit_to_Table (and resultant subthreads), does it not? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator suggested moving the entire discussion to the Village pump. Wherever the discussion is held it makes sense to a) restore the templates to a stable version (they are in complete disarray) and b) alert sister Talk pages. What do others think? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, VP is not for such a discussion but some editors may appreciate a heads up there. Some related talk pages got notifications already, haven't checked them all though. --Zac67 (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The process that makes the most sense to me is an

WP:RFC. These can be elaborate or simple, but in all cases the question and choices should be worded as neutrally as possible with all presented views being treated fairly. In so far as which RFC categories it would fall under, I'd think Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology would be the primary topic, and for the secondary topic I think there's really two choices: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture. I'm personally leaning towards history, which would make {{rfc|sci|hist}} the invocation once we're ready. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I completely missed Quondum. Pinging him now, with my humble apologies for previous omission @Quondum: Sorry! Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]