Template talk:Quantities of bytes

3817:

means that #3 might be what could be targeted. I think of template as a reference: here, a kind of key of notable notations and their links. The first two columns are unassailable: they are supported by standards, they have widespread use in many areas other than in restricted areas. These "restricted areas" seem to me to be (i) binary-addressable memories that are expected to be mapped into a larger address space, and (ii) some perverted leakage of the SI-as-binary use into other areas, which includes a few legacy floppy disk formats and possibly a few other isolated cases (though SI prefixes dominate for memory sticks, disk drives, etc.), technically illiterate applications and OSes (Windows included) and a few insane court challenges. I'm guessing that JEDEC's usage falls into (i). Microsoft's use in Windows influences a lot of people, but this is no reason to adopt this use in WP. As an example, we don't drop spaces before units just because doing so is very common – we don't even give it a mention other than that it is not SI-compliant. If we find that 'TB' actually is used in the binary sense for (i) (it might be, in supercomputers), or if we assume that (b) is to include (ii) (its known use is likely for file/disk sizes only in the UI of Microsoft and a few others, becoming fewer), then adding TB makes sense anyway; I see no harm in doing so.

4452:(XXG) is not leading anyone in using binary prefixes or metric prefixes in proper (standard) interpretation. The heading was labelled JEDEC, and per your argument that should not be used, indeed. It was changed, but for the reason that it is misleading, not that people don't know what it means. The computer world has changed well in advance of your acknowledgement, these units are now used in thousands of cutting edge applications and tools. WP has new editors coming here that want to use the units, because that is what is being used elsewhere today, but some refuseniks revert this and create more confusion than ever existed. As a result, many readers come here and find old nomenclature used, and repeat this in the media. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tell people the lie often enough and they believe it, then justify the wrong by telling us that people don't use or understand the units. 2596:"show that the presentation of material on Knowledge (XXG) is consistent with the views that are presented in scholarly discourse or the world at large". What shows the the views that are presented in the world at large? Is it to show the definition and use of these prefixes with binary values? Or is it hiding the facts? The answer is of course showing the definition and use of these prefixes with binary values which means the common use column needs to be filled with all the prefixes supported by reliable sources, not just kilo/mega/giga. Definitions come from other sources not just standards organisations. Knowledge (XXG) is full of definitions from these kinds of reliable sources. Common use defines these binary prefixes, they are ipso facto definitions. Trying to say that definitions only come from some standards organisations ignores the world at large. 3138:

They in fact acknowledge the decimal standards. If a manufacturer wants to label products with binary prefixes, they are fully within the specs. IIRC, this is even the recommended practice, but for historical reasons manufacturers are free to use binary interpretations of metric prefixes. If anything, the JEDEC column should list both. Better is not to list them at all, because they do not promulgate a standard. It is a listing like any other in many reference works. They only listed those prefixes that were actually used in products at one time, they may have indeed added T since, because now terabyte memories exist. This practice shows that these are not definitions, but listings of common usage.

4314:

interpretation because of common usage. Nobody here disputes that this usage still exists, but countless software has been converting and the new units are commonplace in new software. BTW, I have objected to the column "JEDEC" in these table since introduction, since it is misleading, but contrary to some members of the opposition, have not engaged in endless edit warring to assert my view, just like many others who are of the same persuasion that WP, too, should follow standards organizations. Every other conceivable technical detail is routinely updated when the standard orgs change definitions, not so for these units. It is time that WP follows the trend.

1876:(MMCA, 4.2) JESD84-B42 Page 100.) I was on the JEDEC Solid State Memories committee JC-42 in the 1980s. The standards are developed before the chips are produced, they may precede the actual devices by a year or more. The dictionary is maintained by JC-10. The June 2013 version of JESD88E is the current version and it defines a binary terabyte on page 226. The online dictionary has undue notability here on Knowledge (XXG) because of a foot note about possible confusion the decimal and binary use of megabytes on 3.5 inch floppy diskettes. -- 2648:, etc.) to represent any other meanings than their SI-defined meanings of powers of ten; "binary" uses of those prefixes are an exception that's defined by another standardization body, which is JEDEC. I don't see the point of discussing the whole thing with you, as you seem to refuse to take any other arguments into consideration, and the primary argument you should consider is that various units and prefixes must be defined by respective standardization bodies. — 188: 1715:

and "IEC". Everything in the JEDEC column should be similarly defined by that organization. There is exactly one document at JEDEC where JEDEC publishes their standardized definitions of terms, and "tera" is not among their definitions. It is misleading to list "tera" in that column as if it were on an equal footing with the others. It is not "OR" to note that JEDEC's definitions document does not have a page for "tera", or that "tera" is missing from

5263:

it doesn't matter much, but there are also cases when it does. Can you provide examples of disambiguation of 2^20 or 2^30 bytes, in any publication outside Knowledge (XXG) (or WP clone), using something other than MiB or GiB? So far, editors have found only one counter-example (compared with 80 examples using IEC prefixes). i don't doubt there are more examples than just the one. I'm just saying they're hard to find. (You have offered none so far)

4067:

vein, 'memories' is suggested by 'in the context of sizing memories', and not 'in the context of a memory device'. However, there are phrases that fit 'memory' too: 'in the context of memory sizing'. So it is really a coin flip. I had to choose something, and at the time, that seemed to fit. I don't really care either way. I was sort of hoping someone would come up with something quite different that would fit better. —

372: 620:@people reverting the edits to this: The list in its unedited state effectively doesn't contain the most widely used 1KB=1024B notation. The IEC poppycock is so rarely used that even including them in a table like this is just trying to push them down people's throats. If you really think it's necessary to even include those ridiculous -ibi units in this table, don't make them the primary/only notation in the table. 237: 219: 3933:: IMO, absolutely not. I don't believe that the "traditional binary" prefixes have become the norm anywhere for communication rates, though it is possible that broadband advertising may be a bit strange. Where binary prefixes are convenient, the IEC prefixes must perforce be used to avoid confusion. The field of communication is not tolerant of imprecision: you need the figure to be precise and unambiguous. 313: 295: 5158: 5152: 5446: 4503: 132: 5145: 5122: 4898:, "Memory" suggests the terms were not used elsewhere when they were, and "JEDEC" is apparently objectionable for similar reasons (and also because some people think IEC is a more relevant standards body even though almost nobody follows them for their various -ibi terms). I'm not a fan of "Historical" because in some/most cases these terms are still used. — 5553: 5502: 4702: 21: 2568:

power of two value" in this table. This is because it's neutral to include this information. The point of view that is being fairly and properly rejected is that from Dondervogel because his point of view that this reliably sourced common use should not be included in the table, his point of view is not neutral.

5239:

Google makes it easy to find examples of simple things like occurrences of GiB. Putting counts in context takes a little more work, as we see above, but if you don't do that a robust case can be made that results are being cherry-picked deliberately or by faulty methodology, as in the discussions you

5148:

articles found using the same exclusions. It's not easy to compare because "GB" and "MB" turn up in so many irrelevant ways, but we can adapt your search (Google Scholar, 2020, various exclusions) to find instances of "256 MB", "512 MB", "256 GB" and "512 GB" - a very arbitrary selection of common IT

4749:

While I can understand that "deprecated" is not the right word to describe this column, I do believe that the removal of this JEDEC/memory column will partially resolve this issue. Not only does the column invite edit wars, it also creates confusion and ambiguity, as the prefixes conflict. If needed,

4596:

Jonesey95, be aware that this request amounts to an attempt at circumventing the reason for the template editing restriction by the edit warrior who failed to get during the edit warring that triggered the restriction. In any event, it would just degenerate into a pointless argument about what would

4476:

Also, on the point of "there was consensus for this change" (paraphrasing), can someone who has revert warred me show that? Because I see in the discussion above that myself and Greg L were generally against changes that promoted the IEC units, and Woodstone was for maintaining the status quo because

4130:

NOTE 2 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 a “megabyte” consisting of 1 024 000 bytes to

3234:

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 a “megabyte” consisting of 1 024 000 bytes to define

2735:

It's the facts that are relevant for establishing NPOV. So let's visit the facts. The prefixes all have many reliable sources for binary use. Such use has a long history and is common in reliable sources. What possible neutral explanation is there for not including such commonly used binary prefixes?

2670:

think it's "technically wrong" because the majority of reliable sources regarding this topic use these prefixes with binary uses. Your arguments, which are weak, do not allow any of us to ignore the policies and guidelines about reliable sources and neutrality. Neutrality means we all have to reflect

2567:

So you agree that the standard for inclusion into articles is "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources" not "must be defined by standards organisations". This means there is no good reason not to include "terabyte/megabyte/petabyte/etc = this

2383:

All those links are definitions because they give the exact meaning of the words like terabyte etc. Reliable sources don't only have to come from standards organisations. Reliable sources have to be notable and they have to represent significant points of view. It is true that kilobyte all the way to

1940:

for tera, one that I made up, is not there is not definitive. But the fact that none of you will be able to find a page for "tera" alongside the ones for "kilo", "mega", and "giga" in the JEDEC online dictionary most certainly is: There is no page for "tera" in that dictionary. And well you all know

1036:

It's reliably sourced so no reason not to have it. It's irrelevant if someone personally dislikes it because it's what is reliably sourced that matters. The entire JEDEC column should should be renamed to "common prefixes" and contain all the commonly used prefixes as binary quantities because that's

4562:

There is no need to restore anything. The current version is the best compromise that ever existed for this table. It acknowledges that the binary use of units is still common and therefore still has that column, and it makes it clear the practice is deprecated by industry bodies (according to their

3397:

The JEDEC column does not belong into this table. It is a column of exemplary usage, nothing else. By the same token, anyone could justify adding a column for Microsoft showing their use of the units in Windows, or someone could add a column for Seagate to show decimal usage, and cite some manual as

3079:

IIRC, the JEDEC docs do not "define" the units. They list existing definitions and issue recommendations for use in the industry branch and indeed they acknowledge, even recommend, the metric standard, but permit the binary versions as alternative use by vendors. IMHO, the JEDEC column should just

2788:

This template is used to provide common information displayed inline in articles. It is therefore subject to the same neutrality policy as the articles. Since articles have to include commonly used binary units then this template has to as well. In answer to your question, it doesn't matter what you

2501:

and you can read the policy for the reasons why. Specifically articles and this template that is used in articles must be seen to be "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources" which means including "terabyte/megabyte/petabyte/etc = this power

1856:

Jeh your claim is incorrect because the JESD88E link above is from the JEDEC Dictionary of Terms for Solid-State Technology — 6th Edition. It is blatant synthesis to try to claim a dead link you CREATED means anything other than it's a dead link. Not updating one link in a dictionary in a particular

1714:

I do not believe that any widely-recognized standardization body other than JEDEC has codified the use of any of the SI prefixes for any meaning other than as powers of 1000, and JEDEC has only defined kilo, mega, and giga. That's the whole point. The "JEDEC" column head is parallel to "Metric" (SI)

1301:

The last few also describe the power of two use as "common". Such common use means it gets included in the table with references and the column header can be changed to reflect this common use. I also don't have to respond to incorrect claims about fabricated links to pages that don't exist Jeh. You

711:

The IEC and ISO prefixes are documented in international standards for magnitudes up to and including YB and YiB. They are also used in hundreds of scientific articles every year. The JEDEC prefixes are documented in a JEDEC standard up to and including GB. Like compvis I do not believe the JEDEC

5663:

Several widely used operating systems report file sizes with binary units KB and MB. Therefore the header "memory" is too restrictive and "traditional" fits better. The usage of Kbit and Mbit is quite rare and does not merit to be in the template. Almost all official standards organisations declare

5262:

Whether one considers 460 publications in one year to be few or many is a matter of opinion. As such, you are entitled to yours and I am entitled to mine, but to dwell on this is to miss the point about the near-complete absence of disambiguation methods other than MiB. I agree there are cases when

5006:

By less than 2% of sources, a number I can count on one hand for press-related sources, and as far as I know few/any major software development shops use -ibi bit/byte in interfaces that are public-facing. Remember, the onus on inclusion rests on those wanting to include something; you don't get to

4937:

I note that IEC units are still being included in these tables despite no widespread use or adoption, this is, again, giving them undue weight and misleading our readers into thinking these terms are in common use. I think these tables could be much simpler with their removal, and instead a helpful

4160:

JEDEC is stating the official status of these definition, that they ARE deprecated by the standards organizations. JEDEC does not define or recommend units, and does not bypass or dismiss the standards orgs. Their language of citing common usage is clear. The same still common, but deprecated usage

4066:

The headings 'Metric' and 'IEC' refer to contexts, not to things that are measured. They are both evocative of their meanings (e.g. representing the phrases 'as a metric prefix'/'in the context of the metric system' and 'as standardized by the IEC'/'in the context of IEC standards'). In a similar

3694:

Maybe just "Memory"? In a table, the brevity would be understood well enough. Personally, I'd prefer to remove the column, but there are some who seem to think that WP is supposed to reflect common usage (it isn't). It is interesting to see that a niche use (semiconductor memory sizes) qualifies

3669:

setting a standard (or even directly endorsing the use). However, I agree with you that it should be made clear the use of "common use binary prefixes" are used in a restricted to limited class of quantities within those with unit byte. Attaching JEDEC's name to this common use is just spurious.

3491:

Do we have a user insisting on using those ‘kibibit’ units again??? We should only use units of measure that are predominately used in the industry for communicating with a regular customer base. It’s not complex. To those who respond that “we need to disambiguate,” I agree. So, how is it you can’t

3283:

So, it depends entirely on specific product classes which definitions are listed, because each has a common usage history. Therefore, one cannot just pick one usage and list it as the definition that JEDEC uses, as is purported in our table. The fact is that JEDEC does not prescribe definitions for

1055:

Hello! Let's have a look at it from the current usability standpoint: where would TB be used as 1024 bytes, at least frequently enough? At the present state of technology, pretty much nowhere as the computer storage uses powers of ten (for both HDDs and SSDs), while single-computer RAM capacities

5095:

As for being rarely used - yes, I agree with that. But it's not a popularity contest. We document what prefixes can be used. Since they are rare, many people will not know what they are and will therefore turn to WP for help - making it even more important to document them. The same reason that we

3820:

TD;LR suggestion: choose a new heading, and give it mouse-over explanation to deal with the constraints of brevity and include 'TB' in the column, i.e. #3. The heading could be 'Memories', 'Addressable', 'RAM', 'Historical' or similar, with a mouseover saying 'Often used for stackable addressable

3816:

I think Woodstone is simply observing that WP has editors who are somewhat dogmatic and combative about this, which I interpret as crossing only #4 off the list for the present to keep the peace. Since I am objecting to #1, and if the heading changes to reflect that this is related to usage, this

3569:

The column is called JEDEC because that is the organization that has continued to use the classical kilobyte/megabyte/gigabyte/terabyte terms despite IEC units being a "standard". Because they use those terms the manufacturers of RAM/memory continue to perpetuate their use in brochures, marketing,

3137:

The JEDEC documents explicitly state that they list the binary interpretations only because of common usage, not as legal requirement or binding definition. You can't take the output of this form query as anything but a citation. Reading the full documents reveals the true intent of the documents.

1875:

I don't understand the question about the JEDEC use of terabyte. This is not an extraordinary claim that requires multiple sources. It is just the next unit of size. I provided one clear expression of use in a JEDEC standard. (JEDEC Standard. MultiMediaCard (MMC) Electrical Standard, High Capacity

1807:

to try to create any meaning about a link you create not existing, unless you can find a reliable source that supports what you claim about terabyte not being defined because of that specifc link you mention not existing. The mega entry in the JEDEC link already has an entry for tera with a binary

1277:

which says "Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf". The reference is accurate and the account is free to get. These other reliable sources also list all the prefixes with power of two

4451:

Please end this nonsense. People come to Knowledge (XXG) to learn topics they don't know all the time. By that argument WP should not have articles about topics they don't know, or use terms they don't know. That is what linking is for to lead readers to articles that explain the terms. Knowledge

3796:

I don't see how we can just omit the "JEDEC" column (option #4). After all, the convention described in that column is in widespread use. Further, if we do not associate the binary use with JEDEC, there is no longer a justification for stopping at GB (discounts #2). That would suggest we are left

2998:

Please leave as is - there does not appear to be an reference to the JEDEC Binary TB. this column should be left blank to avoid additional confusion. As previously discussed, JEDEC JESD100B.01 falls short of defining the TB, instead, referencing IEC 60027-2. An alternative system is found in

1928:

The "commonly used" binary definition is in smaller type for a reason. JEDEC's primary definition, from the document Fnagaton or Glider linked, is the decimal one. The binary definition is clearly not intended to be taken as equally definitive. Even if we ignore the type size change, the best you

4430:

the computer world to adopt new terms and units of measure. Our readership doesn’t know what JEDEC and IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 are; when we quote what one of these bodies is recommending, we're looking in the entirely wrong places for guidance. Likely over 99% of our readership has zero idea what a

3638:

is not listed in 1999 is clearly that it had no common usage in memory products at the time. This makes it clear that these listing are not standards definitions for industry, but examples, just like Microsoft might list their use of units or any other company. In other product specifications in

3507:

I find the table misleading. It suggests that wherever JEDEC applies, the binary meaning is to be interpreted, or that JEDEC mandates this interpretation to the extent that it might be regarded as a standard. Unless we can negate this perception, I feel strongly that the JEDEC column should be

2131:

I added reliable sources for the binary use of all these prefixes from the links provided above by Fnagaton at 14:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC). I could do with some help tidying up the references so they contain the book titles for each reference. Since the binary use of these prefixes is notable and

2629:

This isn't an article, this is a template and as such it doesn't establish a NPOV; instead, it just provides links to other articles, and a summary of information provided by other articles. Thus, this discussion shouldn't be taking place here at all, but that's what we have at our hands. The

4023:

Okay, I'll take your word for some classes of memories being sized in bits. Which suggests that what has been said about bytes carries over to bits: I cannot see manufacturers being that different in the use of prefixes if they deal in both units. Us treating byte and bit the same here would

2117:. Jeh is being silly trying to claim a difference in font size has some special meaning just for terabyte when it doesn't. In other sections we can see the notes have different font sizes. It's just layout style, nothing more. If he wants to prove it then he needs to produce a reliable source. 855:

I consider the general practice in English in this area to be unstable. We have popular usage avoiding the IEC prefix, but standards-making bodies endorsing them and discouraging the binary meaning of SI prefixes. Thus, I anticipate that some sort of readjustment is likely in the future. Links

731:

terabyte as "1024 gigabytes or 1,099,511,627,776 bytes" first and "one trillion bytes" second. My personal belief is that being concerned with using every available byte is infeasible beyond the megabyte level, so the distinction between the powers-of-ten based meanings and powers-of-two based

4807:

the template gives both the official and de facto prefixes to help the reader navigate the confusing situation. Both are well placed here. The only point of contention is the header of the binary K/M/G(/T) column. Proposals have been JEDEC, Memory, Traditional, Deprecated. Anyone has a better

4225:

The quoted passage is from 1997. How deprecated is it really if everyone is still using it...? And JEDEC is the organization that releases memory standards and has defined these terms in this way, terms which manufacturers, system builders, software developers and so on still continue to use.

5057:

We don't generally include unsourced or poorly sourced information in Knowledge (XXG), the fact that it has survived this long is not germane if the information violates other policies or guidelines. As to the grey area, for me that is having article-prose that mentions some standards bodies

4313:

The JEDEC document is clear and does not support your advocacy and bias. JEDEC does not "define" units, as you wish to assert, they clearly state that they only list common usage, no matter that it is deprecated, which they note. It is similar to Knowledge (XXG) still permitting the binary

4786:

use the -ibi-bit/byte terms that IEC has been pushing since 1997.. the presence of -ibi units is actually the more misleading to our readers, as it suggests those units have seen widespread adoption (when nearly 0% of media sources use them, and less than 2% of sources overall use them).

652:

The table has been reverted to a state where the binary value column is duplicated, and there is no way to quickly know that the binary values are slightly larger than the decimal values. In both cases, I am having trouble seeing this as anything but a step in the wrong direction. :-(

5240:

link. Yes, you didn't find a simple way to find if authors used different means of clarification and yes, you didn't examine how many authors don't find any need for such clarification or even deliberately avoid obscuring their meaning with excessive precision. Similarly, when you write

393: 1979:

The device density is calculated from the register by multiplying the value of the register (sector count) by 512B/sector. The maximum density possible to be indicated is thus 2 Tera bytes (4 294 967 296 x 512B). The least significant byte (LSB) of the sector count value is the byte

2502:

of two value". The definitions for this use comes from reliable sources and all the links provided are considered to be reliable sources for the purposes of defining the common usage of these prefixes. If you disagree then please cite precisely the Knowledge (XXG) policy that says

2244:

Removing the references and using this talk page as the repository of reliable sources would make the template more readable. The table has to include what significant reliable sources show. Removing that relevant information in that revert Dondervogel was the wrong thing to

4182:

Uh... that quote has been available since 1997 since the "standard" was first produced. JEDEC notes the issue and quotes the reason, but is not deprecating the terms for their definition. In addition to the PDF above, this definition is also publicly available on the web at

1857:

part of a website doesn't invalidate common usage demonstrated by other links from the same organisation. As Glider87 correctly points out it's a violation of NPOV to not include commonly used prefixes in the binary column. Their common use is documented by reliable sources.

959:

A recent edit replaced in-line styling by navbox classes. Apart from an acceptable change of coloring, it also has the rather ugly effect that the main title is no longer centered, and the VTE temmplate no longer right aligned. I have tried to fix it, but could not succeed.

3521:(in the sense of setting a standard) the units at all, and does not mandate use of any specific units. Their documents explicitly state that units are listed to reflect common usage, but point out that the binary meaning is deprecated by standards bureaus and is ambiguous. 1082:

Agreed. The "binary terabyte" can hardly be called a "customary usage" when there are no products that use it. And, as I wrote about three weeks ago in response to Fnagaton's arguments on another of these templates' talk pages: References for the entries in this column are

5058:

attempted to address the discrepancy but failed to gain any traction in the computing field at large. Prominently featuring these units, which are largely unused, in a table that features largely on pages including it is a tacit endorsement of a reality we don't live in. —

1998:

Frankly Jeh your attempts at fabricating links and what's actually used by the JEDEC is not neutral or reliable. You're wrong. So now you've been proven wrong with the facts, do you have any policy based objection to including all the commonly used prefixes in the table?

1955:

Fnagaton makes a good point that you've not refuted, namely that you cannot put any special meaning to an out of date dictionary when there are reliable JEDEC sources that do define terabyte with binary meaning. All you're doing is ignoring the evidence that shows you're

3853:

is an example, where nationalism seems to have gained a foothold, creating a bizarre array of jealously protected dialects in en.WP, growing in number. Date formats are another. Unfortunately, this "historical data units" seems to be another such area. I'm glad that

2506:? If you cannot then provide that cite then there isn't any basis for excluding this common usage. It's not simply "being mentioned" it's multiple reliable sources reflecting real world usage and defining "terabyte/megabyte/petabyte/etc = this power of two value". As 1197:

and does not prohibit other reliable sources being used. As I've done I've cited the other standards document that shows terabyte with binary quantities. Trying to claim a link must exist before you accept something is an invalid reason since it's not compatible with

1647:

it somewhere and that's the key. Thus, if we include "binary" terabyte under the "JEDEC" column, it's no longer JEDEC who defines all units in that column. What should we list instead of JEDEC, as there must be some standardization body that defines various units?

2514:

policy. You hyave no policy based reasons for rejecting the good change to the template that ihcludes this extra reliably sourced information Dondervogel. Your edit can be considered disruptive because your revert pushes a point of view that is contrary to policy.

2080:

from 14 standards that were not included in the Fifth Edition plus revised definitions from 26 additional publications and standards that have been updated. All reported errors and necessary rewording have been taken into account.". That is a JEDEC definition.

3801:

clearly favoured the status quo (#1). One problem I see with both #2 and #3 is that the heading "Memory" seems too vague. We also need to convey that it is a widespread and non-standard convention (for computer memory). Can someone suggest a suitable header?

5294:

No thanks - life's too short. The point is, again, that your evidence isn't sufficient for your claims that the usage isn't rare or that "when scientific authors choose to disambiguate, they do so almost universally using IEC prefixes". Think of it as basic

1120:

These are the pages of JEDEC's dictionary in which they define the standard terms that they recommend to their member companies for use. Mere mentions of tera "in a binary sense" within JEDEC's other pages cannot be said to be at the same level, not until

2481:

do is repeat "you are wrong" over and over again, and that is not constructive. That is why I reverted to before the first disruptive edit - that way any proposed change is done from a stable basis, and not the present version, which I totally reject.

3679:

I guess if the "JEDEC" header were replaced with "conventional/non-standard use for semiconductor storage capacity", one could then justify including TB in that column, but that's one heck of a mouthful. It would need to be abbreviated somehow.

3060:

That's interesting. Are you saying that JEDEC defines the terabyte as both a decimal quantity and a binary one? Can you provide a little more context for both definitions? Is there any one JEDEC document that defines all of KB, MB, GB and TB?

2630:

primary question, I'll repeat it again, is do we want to include only formally defined "binary" units, or all commonly (and less commonly) used ones? Though, you don't seem to be willing to truly discuss the whole thing in a constructive way.

3848:

on the SI, but deviates from it, so we do not space '%'. WP is probably also nonstandard on currencies. Unfortunately, some areas of WP MoS guideline are looser, it seems largely because these areas provoke strong feelings in the editors.

4606:

So... Greg L was supposed to "edit war" with you to prove the point? My edit warring was not helpful, but at least I was operating with the status quo in mind, you guys were acting like you'd established consensus for this when you hadn't.

3570:

packaging and in specifications. Other organizations also use these classical terms, such as Apple and Microsoft in both their technical literature as well as in marketing. Literally the outlier here is the IEC units, which, as detailed at

936:

Fair comment. On the other hand, given that few readers have heard of IEC prefixes at all, even fewer will worry too much whether they are called "IEC prefixes" or "ISQ prefixes", so perhaps this is one of those times to favour precision.

5689:

Given that most major manufacturers, software vendors, and even media outlets continue to ignore the deprecation by this standards body, why would we add Knowledge (XXG)'s voice to something that clearly nobody is actually listening to?

1898:

It is amazingly disingenuous of you - that is, of course, a polite way of saying "you're lying" - to cite that entry in JESD88E as support for the binary definition of terabyte. Did you think no one would check up on you? Here it is

767:

that goes up to 16 EB with binary meaning. That's only one article but it seems an important one. There seems no justification to claim though, as this template does, that JEDEC prefixes are applied to quantities larger than 1 EB.

1231:

The way Windows displays storage capacity is a rather good point, but how many times do we state the numbers Windows reports as the capacity of a storage device in a Knowledge (XXG) article, just to describe how large a device is?

1576:

Wherein Seagate says " all major disk drive manufacturers use decimal values when discussing storage capacity." Doesn't exactly help your case. They do note that Windows uses "binary values" but no one has disputed that point.

2273:, there's absolutely no point in inundating numerous articles that transclude this template with all those references. Whatever we decide in the end, please let's keep the references on the talk page, not in the template. — 5371:

those prefixes – there's no pushing (at least not from my side). Also, their use for deliberate disambiguation seems to be fairly common, as can be seen above. Neologisms are something else, I don't think that applies here.

3643:

was listed with both definitions, depending on product history. Their usage pattern makes it clear that they had no intention to set any standard, which is exactly why they refer to other standards (SI & IEC) in the

3009:

EDIT/UPDATE The Binary Terabyte represented by unit TB is found in the March 2016 edition of Revision of JESD220-1 on Page 2 where TB is defined as a Terabyte AND on page 3 where Terabyte: 1.099.511.627.776 or 2 bytes.

1983:

It appears that JEDEC is using the binary Terabyte in their new standards. The working standards committees (such as JC-42) don't worry about what is or isn't in the JEDEC dictionary. I was on JC-42 for about 10 years.

5400:– I agree, so they can be omitted from this table, but mentioned in article prose on this subject as perhaps a "failure to adopt standardization" historical accounting. At this point, to me, it's more interesting (and 3737:

I agree the "JEDEC" definitions do not have the status of ISO/IEC 80000, but I do not see a consensus here for removing the column. On the other hand I don't see a consensus for the status quo either. Options include

4106:

Just saying how my head worked at the time. Feel free to change it as you wish (but not 'JEDEC'). I wasn't defending my choice, only trying to answer the question with an insight of how I happened to settle on it.

2789:

want to include because those guidelines and policies mentioned above obligate you and everyone else to be neutral and include these binary units because that's what the reliable sources do. See for the reasons why.

2049:

it. Also, the fact that Windows uses "binary" terabyte to report storage capacity doesn't mean that JEDEC had defined it. Thus, based on the references provided so far we simply can't conclude that it is JEDEC who

3420:

to JEDEC, but I feel we should establish a new consensus before making a change like that. Before making a decision, we can also consider how well definitions from other standards bodies (ANSI, ISO) align with IEC.

899:(ISQ). Given that the ISQ is a broad collaboration between ISO and IEC, the heading "IEC" seems too narrow to describe the present situation. With this in mind I propose replacing the header "IEC" with "ISQ". 732:

meanings becomes less important for quantities of one gigabyte and above. Hence usage examples tend to be more approximate and it will often be hard to discern which meaning the author of an example had in mind.

5028:

Huh? Inclusion? I thought the discussion was about deleting. I look at the history and the IEC units have been there since the template was created in 2009. Which means it needs a consensus to delete them.

3543:

to a "standard" that has nearly zero adoption by the industry, scholars, schools, retailers or marketing experts. We do not use terms just because someone makes them up and hopes we'll all adopt them. —

1293: 3206:

Maybe not. But this is meaningless, really. Listings are not prescriptive. There is no context to any of those. You have to read the text. Here is what is written in 100B-01, cited by the editor above:

3608:

that defines "kilo", "mega" and "giga" in the binary sense, in the context of semiconductor storage capacity (perhaps that restriction should be made explicit). It does not define "tera" or larger.

3508:

removed. Clarifying this might be done by heading the column "JEDEC (deprecated)", or by replacing "JEDEC" with "Common usage". Otherwise, this column simply violates the encyclopaedic mandate. —

3002:

Further, JESD218 Clearly defines the TB as "a terabyte is equal to 1⋅10 bytes." "For the purpose of this standard", which is clearly the decimal base 10 representation of the TB (section 3.2.1.)

4765:

For this proposed solution, we can keep the decimal and binary columns. The accompanying article text can be used to explain that JEDEC standards are binary despite using the metric/SI prefixes.

5343:). I don't think deletion is necessary, but as there are shades of gray to this, I also don't think unnecessarily pushing them is helpful either, our usage should reflect what our sources use. — 1299: 1297: 1281: 1279: 4709:

as far as the edit request, now that the page is protected - discuss any proposed changes any only activate an edit request if there is a consensus for a change. The page is most certainly at

4243:

Does the date really matter? If you insist on a date audit, the deprecations I am referring to are from 2008 (NIST, SP811), 2009 (ISO 80000-1), 2016 (IEEE, SI 10) and 2019 (BIPM, SI Brochure).

1283: 1125:

exists. Fnagaton has never responded to this point. I consider this point definitive, particularly as Fnagaton has never made a cogent rebuttal to it, only continuing to cite mere "mentions".

417: 557: 2835:

I'm an uninvolved editor. It's clear to me that the long list of references should not be included because it makes the rows no longer line up. It's also obvious from watching the long

1785:

This template shows byte quantities, it's not only for what you thin is in standards bodies. It is misleading to not include significant points of view expressed in reliable sources.

5121:

I agree with most of what you say. I'd only take issue with the claim that IEC prefixes are rarely used. It just depends on where you look. For example they have been used in about

2803:

It's a shame that people don't seem to want to talk about Knowledge (XXG) editing policies and instead revert without comment. They're not really trying to build consensus it seems.

36: 2180:)". Since power of two use of all these prefixes like terabyte/petabyte is widespread in sources it is a significant point of view, which means the policy demands their inclusion. 1302:

claim is not cogent Jeh because the JEDEC use of terabyte with power of two values is reliably sourced. Your insistence on a particular link being created is illogical Jeh and as

4131:

define the capacity of the familiar “1.44-MB” diskette. An alternative system is found in Amendment 2 to IEC 60027-2: Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology – Part 2:

1295: 1291: 1289: 1287: 862: 1285: 474: 412: 73: 4477:

they predicted an "edit war"; and yet I see thee editors claiming "consensus". 3 to 3 is not consensus, and the fact that the rest of us left does not give you consensus (see

4257:

The quoted passage being used to justify "deprecated" is from 1997. Can someone explain what changed in the past month to warrant noting this in the template when the term is

5341:

that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Knowledge (XXG) to increase usage of the term.

2541:

talks about, simply because the fact that various units and prefixes are defined by different standardization bodies prety much belongs to the elementary school knowledge. —

3595:, only to the current heading as used with this column. What we can't have a template that implies what we can't source, namely that the JEDEC standardizes this meaning. — 2478: 3114:

for semiconductor storage capacity. It does not define T. With this in mind, I think the JEDEC column should stay, but limited (as now) to the 3 prefixes that are defined.

5720:. Is it your intention to start conversations over again anytime you don't like the way they go? Also, how do you reconcile your "questions" with the guidance provided at 5225:. I could have continued but I got bored - it was too easy to find examples. By contrast, only one counter-example was identified, of disambiguation on memory hierarchy. 5839: 3946:

for rates, but can nevertheless be found quite frequently in many networking tools and applications that had traditionally used the binary sense of the metric prefixes.

5844: 4426:

the practices most commonly observed and widely recognized in the industry so as to not confuse our readership. Knowledge (XXG) ought not be exploited in the hopes of

4530:

As there was not consensus for the changes made, we should restore the status quo revision until consensus exists for the memory units to be marked as "deprecated". —

4431:“gibibit" is because it’s obscure terminology; maybe that will change one day. And when the computer world changes, then Knowledge (XXG) can change, but not before. 680:). As for losing the decimal approximations of the binary values, it makes the navbox rather wide and arguably would be better suited as actual article content (see 4142:; those are quotation marks). You're attributing the IEC deprecation of the terms to JEDEC, which JEDEC is just documenting the issue as a NOTE in their standard. — 2345:

I don't agree as those sources aren't definitions, but I'm trying to open a path for further constructive discussion that doesn't involve discussionless reverts. —

2666:

I've just had a lovely ploughman's lunch and a decent local brewed beer in a little west country pub, so I'm being generous when I say it really doesn't matter if

5849: 4296:

OK, so nothing changed. We're safe to revert back since apparently you guys misunderstood the JEDEC source discussed above that was used to support this change. —

2431: 3235:

the capacity of the familiar “1.44-MB” diskette. An alternative system is found in Amendment 2 to IEC 60027-2: Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology

329: 3456:

For reasons not clear to me this issue appears to be very sensitive. Changes will likely lead to edit wars. Therefore I am in favour of keeping the status quo.−

676:

There is duplication because and only insofar as the SI prefixed units are ambiguous as to their meaning (decimal or binary?; c.f. User:Boatmurdered above and

108: 3830:

I like the mouse-over idea. With that in mind, my preference is now #3. (And WP does sometimes drop spaces between value and unit symbol. An example is "5%")

2497:

You are wrong Dondervogel because you are not following policy and you are wrong because you resort to personal attacks about socks. For example according to

1037:

what is used in reliable sources. Again this is about correctly representing reliable sources and improving the coverage and relevant of Knowledge (XXG).

914:

Hm. As someone who generally prefers precise and current terminology, I concur. As someone who supports the notion of using the most familiar terms (e.g.

5824: 4422:

It doesn’t much matter if any particular standards organization recommends this practice or that. What matters for a general-interest encyclopedia is to

856:

between WP guidelines and templates will make it easier to be aware of the areas that should be examined if the practice in the English language changes.

519: 5075:

Sheesh - you must be dredging the bottom of the barrel if you think we can't find references for the IEC prefixes. Here's 2 found in less than a minute:

4822:

Customary, common, common usage, also used, also seen, also, Memory (customary), Memory (common usage), annoyingly normal, also OK, sick .... Actually,

1929:

could then say is that this definition gives equal weight to both definitions (but that would be OR, because the type size change is definitely there).

822:

Limited use of self-references are sometimes found in the Template namespace and the Category namespace, such as with disambiguation and stub notices.

5829: 2226:

See the section above for consensus. There are many reliable sources that show binary use so it should be included. You are requested to talk there.

358: 320: 300: 5242:"I'd only take issue with the claim that IEC prefixes are rarely used.... they have been used in about 460 in scientific publications in 2020 alone" 5096:

document many obsolete computers and computers that didn't sell very well on the market. We don't erase history and we don't erase unpopular facts.

1179:

Windows uses TB as binary for hard disks. The JEDEC also define it as a binary quantity. There is no reason not to include TB ain the JEDEC column.

114: 5590:

We have two nearly identical templates but there are some differences between them. I have the following questions that seem to merit discussion

2422:

Are you aware that various units, such as kilogram, pound, meter or inch, must be defined by different standardization bodies? For example, see

493: 261: 4344: 4184: 1639:

As we know, this template tries to list various units as categories defined by the respective standardization bodies. Obviously, JEDEC doesn't

1122: 1100: 1092: 1088: 1084: 764: 2959:

I also agree with Woodstone that this is not the right place for a comparison. The comparison can probably be better explained in an article.

802:

it, saying that "template space is not article space, and the link to the WP space page is not visible in the transclusion of this template".

465: 4915:"Memory" seems to be the lesser evil or subjected to the least objection, so I went ahead and harmonized the templates (at least for now). -- 3492:

figure out a way to disambiguate using conventional units of measure everyone is familiar with, just like the big computer manufacturers do?

582: 5798: 2307:

Do you agreed that the recent additions are reliably sourced? If there is consensus for that, it is clearly time to make new articles for

2932:

This template is not the right place for a comparison. It is used in many places just to define the prefixes. Comparisons can be found in

446: 5248:

a rhetorical question rather than testing it yourself, you shouldn't be surprised if someone else finds the answer. Yes, it is so rare.

1522:

On which page in that PDF is the definition of "binary" terabyte, please? Searching for "TB", "terabyte" and "1024" returned nothing. —

2894: 2132:

common using reliable sources for each entry seems like overkill, but if you wanted to start referencing each use or definition then OK.

5327:

Sorry if I wasn't clearer on this: I'm well aware that some standards bodies have created these terms. But we still do not give them

3535:

Yeah, no... we go by what our sources say, and our sources don't use KiB/MiB/GiB/TiB or their longform variations, as you can see at

2177: 1540:

Page 100 "The maximum density possible to be indicated is thus 2 Tera bytes (4 294 967 296 x 512B)" which is a power of value value.

244: 224: 3571: 3536: 2703:

I was in a good mood. Now this template has neutral and reliably sourced information in this template it's much better than before.

54: 2072:

It's included in the standards document, which is a definition, and in the "Dictionary of Terms for Solid-State Technology" which

5758: 5737: 5717: 5699: 5653: 5624: 5490: 5413: 5352: 5286: 5067: 5020: 4947: 4907: 4895: 4796: 4733: 4689: 4666: 4620: 4586: 4539: 4490: 4372: 4305: 4270: 4235: 4203: 4151: 3583: 3552: 3448: 103: 5834: 5569: 5518: 4782:. Unsupported by the sources, manufacturers, or major software vendors who still use the terms interchangeably, and definitely 1358:

remains. No, you don't have to respond, in which case the point remains valid. I am not disputing that various JEDEC documents

667: 538: 806: 503: 384: 199: 4876: 4347:(which, if you go back to one of the letters, clearly marks itself as a "dictionary", and even has "dictionary" in the URI). 3972: 3901: 147: 5189:

to disambiguate in scientific literature. Other forms of disambiguation are very rare (almost non-existent), by comparison.

5164:

You might like to try that using other values such as 1, 2, 4, 64 and even 100 or 3, but I think you'll see similar ratios.

4879:

labels used for what seems to me to be the same convention. I think the templates would benefit from further harmonisation.

810: 427: 94: 4657:

Do you regularly make false statements, or are you just genuinely incapable of telling the truth? Honestly, very curious. —

4577:

Until consensus develops for this language it should be removed, as we would with any proposed change on Knowledge (XXG). —

3969:: Is there anywhere that addressable memories are specified in bit sizes? It might make sense to remove the column here. 4563:

own literature). References for that would be nice for completeness, but are the responsibility of the enclosing article.

548: 328:

related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4872: 3257:. PS: The editor apparently has access to a newer draft of the document, I can only access the 2002 version right now. 2759: 2726: 2694: 2657: 2550: 2451: 2354: 2282: 2104: 2063: 1918:

NOTE Contrast with terabyte commonly used as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity and meaning 240 bytes.

1657: 1531: 1437: 1241: 1065: 58: 3665:, I had that "dictionary" in mind when I made that point. I agree with kbrose's counterpoint: that is very much JEDEC 712:

prefixes are used for large magnitudes. The version proposed by compvis is better than that proposed by arthur rubin.

27: 4868: 3976: 3966: 3906: 2685:

Why would your lunch, beer you had, and the assessment that you're in a "generous" mood matter for this discussion? —

513: 158: 4960:

in the real world. Therefore we should document them here, even though WP (and the real world) use them only rarely.

4888: 3858:

seems to have settled into a definite single style. I'll give it a first attempt, and see what the reactions are. —

3591:

What sources say that JEDEC standardizes KB, MB and GB in the binary sense? I am not objecting to having the column

1970:

My use of page 100 was the page in the PDF file, the printed page is 86. Here is an actual use of a binary terabyte.

5125:. Is that so rare? When scientific authors choose to disambiguate, they do so almost universally using IEC prefixes 4750:

I believe the JEDEC prefixes and this topic should be explained in accompanying article text instead of this table.

3398:

definition for each. JEDEC does not set standards for units, but for products. The table is for the standards-based

5565: 5529: 5514: 1973:

JEDEC STANDARD "MultiMediaCard (MMC) Electrical Standard, High Capacity (MMCA, 4.2)" JESD84-B42 page 86. (PDF 100).

5637:

Until a recent revert, the 'KB' column was deprecated in the bytes template. Is the KB notation deprecated or not?

5600:

Until a recent revert, the 'KB' column was deprecated in the bytes template. Is the KB notation deprecated or not?

5452: 4509: 2168: 3975:: This template suggests that the prefixes given apply equally, but I doubt that they do. Note my comment about 3695:

as dominating all usage of units, and that all other products and uses do not count under common usage either. —

575: 2817:

If they don't talk they're not engaging in the consensus process. Reverting workout talking would be disruptive.

1803:

says "terabyte commonly used as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity and meaning 2 bytes" It is

4770: 4755: 4724:

We should not be rewarding bad behavior (editing without consensus, then edit warring to maintain that edit). —

2964: 2211:

Editors are requested to make proposals here at Talk and gain consensus for changes before implementing them.

484: 205: 5203:

Or we're seeing that very many writers don't think they need to disambiguate or are doing it by other means.

4211:

Binary use of those symbols is deprecated by multiple standards bodies, including BIPM, IEEE, ISO, and NIST.

5783: 5608: 5268: 5230: 5194: 5135: 4884: 4641: 4287: 4248: 4216: 4014: 3917: 3835: 3807: 3760: 3685: 3613: 3426: 3360: 3177: 3119: 3066: 2918: 2898: 2487: 2320: 2216: 1156: 1026: 942: 904: 773: 717: 4608: 4548:

Which revision do you want to restore? Please request a specific revision by its oldid or UTC date/time. –

4478: 2890: 2717:

Well, a person's mood shouldn't affect their viewpoints, especially when it's about establishing a NPOV. —

915: 4187:. You can see they still define "mega" as the traditional meaning even with their note about the IEC unit. 1017:? The issue is not whether the terabyte is sometimes used in this way (that it is has been established at 979:

should be better, we can't use width:2em due to the vte links floating outside of the sidebar on Firefox.

625: 257: 5725: 5721: 5687:

Almost all official standards organisations declare the binary usage of K, M, G (and T) to be deprecated.

2593: 2538: 791: 84: 4481:). And there is definitely not consensus to change other templates where this discussion was not held. — 4080:

is also unusual. It would be appropriate for amounts of memorable happenings (memories of a life time).

2839:

back-and-forth that there is no consensus to add anything to the JEDEC/Common Use column beyond "giga".

1428:

guideline as an argument for something that should be very simply accessible doesn't make much sense. —

1354:

Obviously a specific missing page is not by itself definitive, but the fact that "Tera" is missing from

260:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

5724:

which says IEC units are generally not to be used? As this template is in article-space, it seems like

5335:, another policy that pushing these terms violates (specifically the opening sentence of that section: 621: 99: 2510:

pointed out above "This is not an extraordinary claim". Not including this usage is not following the

994:

It looks ok now. I suppose you will repeat the process on the sister templates of bits and prefixes? −

5754: 5750: 5733: 5729: 5695: 5691: 5649: 5645: 5510: 5486: 5482: 5409: 5405: 5362: 5348: 5344: 5282: 5278: 5104: 5063: 5059: 5047: 5016: 5012: 4968: 4943: 4939: 4903: 4899: 4792: 4788: 4729: 4725: 4685: 4681: 4662: 4658: 4616: 4612: 4582: 4578: 4535: 4531: 4486: 4482: 4368: 4364: 4301: 4297: 4266: 4262: 4231: 4227: 4199: 4195: 4147: 4143: 3773:) to express the sentiment of JEDEC on this issue. JESD100 can even be used as a reference for that. 3579: 3575: 3548: 3544: 3444: 3440: 1719:. On the contrary, it is blatant synthesis to generalize from a mere mention to a formal definition. 845: 693: 644: 1933: 1469: 1425: 1274: 403: 5669: 4813: 4766: 4751: 4553: 4408: 3461: 2960: 2945: 1989: 1881: 999: 969: 663: 5621:

The Kbit/KB column is labelled 'Memory' in one and 'Traditional' in the other. Which is preferred?

5594:

The Kbit/KB column is labelled 'Memory' in one and 'Traditional' in the other. Which is preferred?

3850: 3605: 3169: 3111: 3107: 3103: 1447: 1021:), but whether said use merits it acquiring the same status as other entries in the same column. 5779: 5711: 5664:

the binary usage of K, M, G (and T) to be deprecated. That should be mentioned in the templates.−

5604: 5296: 5264: 5226: 5190: 5185:

MB is far more common than MiB. No one here is disputing that. My main point is that MiB is used

5131: 4880: 4652: 4637: 4283: 4244: 4212: 4010: 3913: 3831: 3803: 3756: 3681: 3662: 3609: 3422: 3356: 3350: 3173: 3115: 3062: 3053: 2914: 2822: 2808: 2794: 2741: 2708: 2676: 2601: 2573: 2520: 2483: 2389: 2316: 2250: 2231: 2212: 2185: 2137: 2122: 2086: 2004: 1961: 1862: 1817: 1790: 1565: 1545: 1477: 1455: 1410: 1319: 1206: 1184: 1152: 1042: 1022: 984: 938: 900: 869: 769: 713: 5328: 4352: 3540: 3435:

The only thing being given undue weight in this is the IEC units. Unlike those, the JEDEC units

3417: 2423: 2308: 830:

If we really think that a reference to the WP page is necessary at all, it should probably be a

4710: 4598: 4108: 4084:

is most likely much more common in information technology. A set of RAM modules is not called

4068: 4025: 3985: 3930: 3896: 3859: 3822: 3788: 3696: 3671: 3596: 3509: 2312: 169: 80: 3032: 2836: 2511: 2114: 1809: 1800: 1056:

in the range of terabytes are still very rare. Thus, IMHO we should be better without it. —

815: 529: 5538: 4568: 4457: 4436: 4319: 4166: 4097: 4056: 3951: 3787:

The list seems to sum it up. The only option that I feel is untenable is #1 (no change). —

3778: 3653: 3526: 3497: 3407: 3289: 3268: 3250: 3143: 3085: 2755: 2722: 2690: 2653: 2546: 2447: 2350: 2278: 2100: 2059: 1653: 1527: 1433: 1237: 1061: 880: 875:, for example, the documentation is chock full of links to pages in template and WP space. 834: 742: 455: 325: 5716:

I'll note that you seem to be ignoring the discussions above, as well as the discussion at

5332: 2750:

I've already explained it a few times, and there's point in repeating it all once again. —

1555: 5810: 5787: 5761: 5740: 5702: 5673: 5656: 5612: 5573: 5543: 5522: 5493: 5477:{{subst:Template for discussion|type=sidebar|heading=Quantities of computing information}} 5416: 5381: 5377: 5355: 5308: 5289: 5272: 5257: 5234: 5212: 5198: 5173: 5139: 5116: 5109: 5098: 5070: 5052: 5041: 5023: 4994: 4990: 4973: 4962: 4950: 4924: 4920: 4910: 4854: 4850: 4835: 4817: 4799: 4774: 4759: 4736: 4719: 4692: 4669: 4645: 4623: 4601: 4589: 4572: 4557: 4542: 4493: 4461: 4440: 4412: 4375: 4323: 4308: 4291: 4273: 4252: 4238: 4220: 4206: 4170: 4154: 4111: 4101: 4071: 4060: 4028: 4018: 3988: 3955: 3921: 3862: 3839: 3825: 3811: 3791: 3782: 3764: 3699: 3689: 3674: 3657: 3617: 3599: 3586: 3555: 3530: 3512: 3501: 3465: 3451: 3430: 3411: 3364: 3336: 3293: 3272: 3254: 3181: 3147: 3089: 3070: 2987: 2983: 2968: 2949: 2922: 2902: 2854: 2826: 2812: 2798: 2763: 2745: 2730: 2712: 2698: 2680: 2661: 2605: 2577: 2554: 2524: 2491: 2455: 2393: 2358: 2324: 2286: 2254: 2235: 2220: 2189: 2141: 2126: 2108: 2090: 2067: 2008: 1993: 1965: 1950: 1885: 1866: 1821: 1794: 1728: 1661: 1586: 1569: 1549: 1535: 1481: 1459: 1441: 1375: 1323: 1245: 1210: 1188: 1160: 1134: 1069: 1046: 1030: 1003: 988: 973: 946: 927: 908: 884: 849: 841: 777: 746: 721: 696: 685: 671: 647: 636: 629: 5473:

Can the following please be added to the template as it has been nominated for deletion:

5277:

We won't be using opinions on this, we'll be using facts. The facts do not support you. —

3855: 3043: 3021: 2999:

Amendment 2 to IEC 60027-2: Letter symbols to be used in electrical technology – Part 2:

1804: 1799:

Jeh you are incorrect about the JEDEC only having binary tera in one document. The JEDEC

1311: 1307: 1199: 1194: 798:

it on the grounds that "generally article space should not link to WP space", but Jc3s5h

5775: 1716: 1355: 1104: 635:

They're not primary/only, and we include them for completeness and lack of ambiguity. --

5806: 5665: 5304: 5253: 5208: 5169: 4831: 4809: 4549: 4404: 3798: 3457: 3343: 3322: 3301: 2941: 2847: 2507: 1985: 1877: 1465: 995: 965: 654: 371: 5008: 4356: 3769:"Memory" is a better choice than "JEDEC", and I would add a foot note or second line ( 2498: 394:

Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet

5818: 5089: 4714: 2937: 2910: 2819: 2804: 2791: 2737: 2704: 2672: 2635: 2624: 2597: 2570: 2534: 2517: 2385: 2247: 2227: 2182: 2133: 2118: 2083: 2001: 1957: 1946: 1859: 1813: 1786: 1724: 1582: 1562: 1542: 1474: 1452: 1415: 1371: 1316: 1303: 1202: 1180: 1130: 1039: 980: 961: 923: 896: 728: 681: 5627:. Though upon reading the JEDEC definitions I'm starting to lean back towards JEDEC. 5088:

We don't normally put references in templates though. But the template does link to

3744:

Change "JEDEC" heading to "convention/memory" or similar, leaving KB, MB and GB only

1446:

It is accessible and verifiable if you create a free account. There is a copy of it

3564: 5799:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Physics#Add ronna- and quetta- to units articles?

5683:

The usage of Kbit and Mbit is quite rare and does not merit to be in the template.

865:, I think it only applies to material that is visible in articles. If you look at 5083: 3626:

those prefixes because of history of common usage, as detailed in the listing of

813:, and that the "see also" list is not visible (being tagged as <noinclude: --> 5681:

Pretty sure Dondervogel was referring to the bits column, not the bytes column.

5561: 5535: 4629: 4564: 4453: 4432: 4315: 4177: 4162: 4093: 4052: 3947: 3774: 3649: 3522: 3493: 3403: 3329: 3308: 3285: 3264: 3246: 3139: 3081: 2751: 2718: 2686: 2649: 2542: 2474: 2443: 2346: 2304: 2274: 2096: 2055: 1649: 1558: 1523: 1429: 1233: 1057: 876: 738: 5679:

Therefore the header "memory" is too restrictive and "traditional" fits better.

5078: 3241:

So, JEDEC explicitly states that the binary interpretation of the prefixes is

236: 218: 5388: 5373: 4986: 4916: 4846: 3821:

memory sizes.' The mouseover text could be elaborated somewhat if desired. —

3539:. If anything, the column for the IEC units should be removed as it is giving 3298:

I guess we need some input from other contributors to this Talk page. Pinging

2979: 4956:

I've argued elsewhere that WP should not use IEC prefixes. But they are used

2076:

terms used in the standards. As they say in the document "This Sixth Edition

2033:

Guys, this is slowly becoming ridiculous. The fact that some JEDEC document

5802: 5338: 5300: 5249: 5204: 5180: 5165: 4827: 4047:, the plural, in the column heading is rather odd syntax for a device class 2840: 436: 253: 4005:

Bits and bytes: Let's revisit once we've decided what to do with Mbit, Gbit

2861:

An extra column can show the relative difference between Decimal and Binary

312: 294: 4138:, they are quoting IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 (hence those weird symbols around 2204:

The table had become impossible to read because of all the references, and

737:

The dictionary I cited does not have definitions for petabyte or exabyte.

5534:

Please revert that edit now that the discussion has been closed as keep.

3315: 2384:

zettabyte with binary values are notable and significant points of view.

1942: 1720: 1578: 1367: 1126: 919: 677: 249: 4938:

header that notes where certain units are used (memory, storage, etc). —

4329:

The JEDEC document is clear and does not support your advocacy and bias.

4194:

and are just now acting like it says that JEDEC "deprecated" the term. —

4002:

uses Mbit, Gbit, sometimes with a binary meaning and sometimes decimal.

760: 755:

The argument repeatedly used against IEC prefixes is that they are not

5217:

I provided 27 examples (of use of IEC prefixes for disambiguation) on

3262:

For the purpose of this standard, a terabyte is equal to 1⋅10^12 bytes

2166:

The policy in a nutshell "Knowledge (XXG) articles should be based on

20: 5404:) how few companies/organizations use these terms than how many do. — 4420:

Follow the common practices of the RSs and the computer manufacturers

2200:

I reverted to the last stable version (14 June, by Frietjes) because

3437:

are actually used in marketing, documentation, reviews and packaging

3005:@Dondervogel 2 rolled the change out - I agree - leave this blank. 2477:

The trouble with your approach is that the only thing Fnagaton and

4845:: readers likely require some guidance to make out what's what. -- 3999: 2537:, regarding the guideline you're asking for, it's covered by what 840:

hatnote, but even then I don't think it appropriate or necessary.

3574:, are not widely used in our sources or by the public at-large. — 2911:

Binary_prefix#Deviation_between_powers_of_1024_and_powers_of_1000

2866: 2504:

only standards organisations definitions must be used in articles

2207:

the instability demonstrates a lack of consensus for the changes.

1941:

it, no matter how you try to twist and turn to get away from it.

682:

Binary_prefix#Deviation_between_powers_of_1024_and_powers_of_1000

2933: 2041:

it at the same time. For example, the JESD84-B42 document also

2887:

Consider adding such third column in the English version too.

1932:

Meanwhile, the "tera" page is still conspicuously missing from

5440: 4497: 4140:

This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated.

512:

Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see

181: 126: 49: 15: 3517:

I second this. The column should be removed. JEDEC does not

1913:

terabyte (TB) ( in reference to solid-state drive capacity):

816:

Knowledge (XXG):SELF#In the Template and Category namespaces

4981:

removing IEC prefixes. Even though only occasionally, they

2978:– not the right place for that and confusing to readers. -- 4282:. The subsequent discussion led to the present consensus. 3033:

https://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/docs/JESD218.pdf

4192:

that you've even quoted this passage before six years ago

863:

Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid

5746: 5222: 5218: 5128: 5126: 4633: 4279: 4191: 2269: 1420: 1271: 1018: 1014: 799: 795: 3044:

https://www.jedec.org/system/files/docs/JESD220-1A.pdf

3022:

https://www.jedec.org/system/files/docs/JESD100B01.pdf

2533:

Yeah, so we have that "you are wrong" once again. :)

4867:

The bit and byte templates remain inconsistent, with

4863:

Harmonise Bytes, Bits and 'Bits and bytes' templates?

4355:. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources per 2315:

as these are defined by the same "reliable source".

2176:

that have appeared in those sources are covered (see

1915:

A memory capacity approximately equal to 1x10 bytes.

324:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 248:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 4161:for memory is now properly reflected in the table. 3844:Well, yes – WP's style for quantities and units is 4351:Perfect, can you please demonstrate this "trend"? 4092:, and that even applies to a farm of disk drives. 2045:numerous aspects of the SPI standard, but doesn't 1936:. Fnagaton, you are correct, that a specific page 418:Computer science articles needing expert attention 5331:when so few sources actually use them. See also: 4713:, but that is not a reason for another revert. — 4632:just showed up here out of the blue, without any 1717:that document's list of terms that start with "T" 1193:The "cannot be used at the same level" reason is 895:The so-called "IEC prefixes" are now part of the 5144:460 instances in 2020 is not a lot out of about 4278:I believe the edit that sparked this thread was 3892:Looks good. I added TB. Also, let's not forget 2037:the "binary" terabyte doesn't imply that JEDEC 1560:with hard disks, from a hard disk manufacturer. 824:Expanding this to other areas is not encouraged 820: 198:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 5084:https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html 3245:. What else does one need to make the point? 2432:National Institute of Standards and Technology 1903:with boldface and font size changes preserved: 558:WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs 5797:Editors might like to join the discussion at 5718:Template talk:Quantities of bits#JEDEC_column 5625:Template talk:Quantities of bits#JEDEC_column 5149:values. Then we can run the same for MiB/GiB. 4985:in use in the real world as well as in WP. -- 2867:https://nl.wikipedia.org/Veelvouden_van_bytes 1812:by refusing to accept those reliable sources. 814:), I still do not believe it is appropriate. 8: 5631:Should there even be a 'Kbit' column at all? 5597:Should there even be a 'Kbit' column at all? 5123:460 in scientific publications in 2020 alone 5079:https://www.iec.ch/prefixes-binary-multiples 2640:Technically, it's wrong to use SI prefixes ( 891:The International System of Quantities (ISQ) 338:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Computer science 5035:use IEC units and WP must not mention them 4403:: warnings for edit-warring are going out. 2174:all majority and significant minority views 2095:From which source is that quote, please? — 1009:Recent addition of terabyte in JEDEC column 475:Computer science articles without infoboxes 413:Computer science articles needing attention 3279:Terabyte: 1.099.511.627.776 or 2^40 bytes. 2888: 379:Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 353: 289: 213: 5039:. No need to be black and white on this. 5031:Also, there is some grey area between WP 5004:in use in the real world as well as in WP 3172:in JEDEC's dictionary of terms (JESD88). 1643:a "binary" terabyte; instead, JEDEC just 5840:Template-Class Computer science articles 4862: 3979:. This might make this one problematic. 3260:Standard 218 (2010, SSD drives) states: 5845:NA-importance Computer science articles 3014: 291: 215: 5686: 5682: 5678: 5636: 5630: 5620: 5393: 5336: 5245: 5241: 4999: 4597:really be the "status quo" version. — 4348: 4340: 4328: 4139: 5850:WikiProject Computer science articles 4680:Jonesey95, 1029732001 is the oldid. — 4349:It is time that WP follows the trend. 3277:Standard 220 (2013, for UFS) lists: 2671:use as the reliable sources show us. 2178:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view 341:Template:WikiProject Computer science 318:This template is within the scope of 270:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Computing 242:This template is within the scope of 187: 185: 7: 3912:Should they not be made consistent? 3416:I understand the point about giving 3284:units, but lists common usage only. 1554:Terabyte use as power of two values 964:might have a try at correcting it. − 2882:10.0% difference between TB and TiB 1362:the term. I am disputing that they 1103:exists, or until "tera" appears on 204:It is of interest to the following 57:for discussing improvements to the 5685:Do you have any evidence of this? 4331:Bias? Advocacy? I'm just going by 3755:Have I missed any important ones? 2876:4.9% difference between MB and MiB 2873:2.4% difference between kB and KiB 2438:somewhere isn't automatically its 897:International System of Quantities 494:Timeline of computing 2020–present 31: 26:This template was considered for 14: 5825:Template-Class Computing articles 5394:There's no undue weight given by 5367:There's no undue weight given by 5092:, which has plenty of references. 4136:JEDEC is not deprecating the term 3797:only with option #3, except that 811:Knowledge (XXG):Article namespace 520:Computing articles needing images 79:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 5830:NA-importance Computing articles 5774:A new proposal has been made at 5551: 5500: 5444: 4896:Template talk:Quantities of bits 4700: 4501: 3747:Change heading per #2 and add TB 2434:(NIST). Thus, having some unit 1366:the term. Clearly, they do not. 1306:points out it is a violation of 790:The template currently includes 759:, so let's look at usage. WP's 370: 311: 293: 235: 217: 186: 130: 74:Click here to start a new topic. 19: 4343:And yet they literally have an 4259:clearly still being widely used 3102:But JEDEC does define prefixes 1808:quantity. So you are violating 3973:Template:Bit and byte prefixes 3902:Template:Bit and byte prefixes 3439:for memory-related products. — 273:Template:WikiProject Computing 1: 5811:23:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC) 5788:19:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 4341:JEDEC does not "define" units 4335:, and in this instance, what 885:15:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 850:05:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 574:Tag all relevant articles in 332:and see a list of open tasks. 264:and see a list of open tasks. 71:Put new text under old text. 3402:of the units, not examples. 1013:Are people comfortable with 955:Styling using navbox classes 697:19:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC) 672:15:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC) 648:01:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC) 630:00:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC) 583:WikiProject Computer science 359:WikiProject Computer science 321:WikiProject Computer science 5762:07:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC) 5467:to reactivate your request. 5455:has been answered. Set the 5417:18:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC) 5382:10:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC) 5356:06:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC) 5309:18:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC) 5290:06:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC) 5273:18:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC) 5258:16:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC) 5235:12:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC) 5213:12:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC) 5199:12:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC) 5174:12:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC) 5140:11:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC) 5110:10:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC) 5071:07:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC) 5053:10:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC) 5024:07:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC) 4995:05:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC) 4974:22:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC) 4951:21:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC) 4925:05:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC) 4911:21:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC) 4889:11:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC) 4524:to reactivate your request. 4512:has been answered. Set the 4261:by the industry at-large? — 3977:Template:Quantities of bits 3967:Template:Quantities of bits 3907:Template:Quantities of bits 2169:reliable, published sources 707:IEC, ISO and JEDEC Prefixes 514:List of computer scientists 5866: 3071:10:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC) 2909:Good suggestion. See also 2855:09:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC) 2827:16:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2813:15:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2799:21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2764:12:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC) 2746:16:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2731:15:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2713:15:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2699:13:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2681:12:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 2662:20:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2606:15:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2578:13:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2555:12:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2525:12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2492:12:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2456:12:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2394:11:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2359:11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2325:11:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2287:11:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2255:00:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2236:23:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2221:22:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2190:20:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2142:15:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2127:15:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2109:12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2091:12:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2068:09:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 2009:04:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 1994:04:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 1966:15:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 1951:02:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 1886:01:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 1867:23:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1822:22:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1795:22:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1729:20:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1662:15:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1587:20:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1570:15:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1550:14:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1536:14:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1482:14:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1460:14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1442:14:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1376:20:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1324:14:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1246:13:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1211:13:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1189:13:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1161:10:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1135:08:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1095:. We can't say that JEDEC 1070:06:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1047:23:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 1031:21:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 778:14:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 747:13:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 722:12:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 5728:answers your questions. — 5523:20:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC) 5494:17:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC) 4894:As has been discussed at 4855:17:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 4836:17:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 4818:14:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 4800:05:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 4775:05:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 4760:04:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 4737:20:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC) 4720:18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC) 4693:16:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC) 4670:20:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC) 4646:17:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC) 4624:16:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC) 4602:02:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC) 4590:16:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC) 4573:00:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC) 4558:19:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC) 4543:16:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC) 4494:00:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC) 4462:18:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC) 4441:01:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC) 4413:22:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC) 4376:20:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC) 4324:20:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC) 4309:18:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC) 4292:18:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC) 4274:18:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC) 4253:18:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC) 4239:17:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC) 4221:17:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC) 4207:17:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC) 4171:13:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC) 4155:06:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC) 2988:06:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 2969:04:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 2054:the "binary" terabyte. — 1004:15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 989:17:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC) 947:21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 928:21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 909:11:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 576:Category:Computer science 352: 344:Computer science articles 306: 230: 212: 109:Be welcoming to newcomers 5778:. Please comment there. 5741:16:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 5703:16:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 5674:16:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 5657:16:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 5613:12:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 5586:Bits and bytes templates 5574:10:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC) 5544:00:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC) 4112:00:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC) 4102:00:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC) 4072:22:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC) 4061:20:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC) 4029:22:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC) 4019:20:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC) 3989:18:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) 3956:00:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC) 3922:15:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC) 3863:12:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC) 3840:09:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC) 3826:15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC) 3812:09:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC) 3792:01:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC) 3783:17:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC) 3765:17:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC) 3700:17:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC) 3690:09:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC) 3675:21:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 3658:19:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 3634:refers. The reason that 3618:18:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 3600:17:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 3587:17:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 3556:17:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 3531:15:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 3513:13:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 2950:14:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 2923:14:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 2903:14:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 2430:of pound, issued by the 2113:It's in the foreword of 974:16:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC) 818:says (with my emphasis) 578:and sub-categories with 4190:I also find it amusing 3927:Each case is different 3502:23:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC) 3466:16:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 3452:16:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 3431:16:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 3412:14:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 3365:13:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 3294:13:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 3273:13:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 3255:13:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 3182:12:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 3148:12:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 3090:01:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 2869:It has a third column: 1934:their online dictionary 5835:All Computing articles 5437:Protected edit request 4826:might not be too bad. 3168:There is no entry for 2865:Please have a look at 2499:Knowledge (XXG) policy 2196:Revert to 14 June 2015 1921: 1472:guideline if you like. 828: 786:See also: WP:COMPUNITS 539:Computer science stubs 258:information technology 104:avoid personal attacks 5566:Justlettersandnumbers 5530:Justlettersandnumbers 5515:Justlettersandnumbers 5007:vote your way out of 4824:Memory (common usage) 4126:From the linked PDF: 4039:Plural column heading 3052:Open for discussion? 1910: 918:), I have my doubts. 807:WP:Template namespace 245:WikiProject Computing 148:Bit and byte prefixes 5747:take this as a "Yes" 4333:what our sources say 4280:this one from 28 Apr 3998:Quantities of bits: 2994:Recent Edit to Table 2078:includes definitions 794:under "See also". I 357:Things you can help 34:. The result of the 4933:IEC units inclusion 4345:online "dictionary" 4024:simplify things. — 3750:Remove JEDEC column 2172:, making sure that 1450:without an account. 805:While I agree that 59:Quantities of bytes 5776:Quantities of bits 5297:hypothesis testing 5246:"Is that so rare?" 5187:almost exclusively 2424:one of the updates 1151:I agree with Jeh. 276:Computing articles 200:content assessment 159:Quantities of bits 115:dispute resolution 76: 5471: 5470: 4745:Removal of column 4711:The Wrong Version 4528: 4527: 3995:Bitrates: I agree 3942:They are not the 3931:Template:Bitrates 3897:Template:Bitrates 3772: 3718:Suggested options 3606:online dictionary 3572:IEC units are bad 3537:IEC units are bad 2905: 2893:comment added by 1919: 1414: 613: 612: 609: 608: 605: 604: 601: 600: 597: 596: 288: 287: 284: 283: 180: 179: 125: 124: 95:Assume good faith 72: 48: 47: 5857: 5715: 5559: 5555: 5554: 5533: 5508: 5504: 5503: 5478: 5462: 5458: 5448: 5447: 5441: 5392: 5366: 5219:memory hierarchy 5184: 5120: 5108: 5107: 5051: 5050: 4972: 4971: 4717: 4708: 4704: 4703: 4656: 4519: 4515: 4505: 4504: 4498: 4181: 3770: 3568: 3354: 3347: 3340: 3333: 3326: 3319: 3312: 3305: 3046: 3041: 3035: 3030: 3024: 3019: 2845: 2639: 2628: 2272: 1917: 1901:in its entirety, 1423: 1408: 1273:does not follow 874: 868: 839: 833: 727:Merriam-Webster 691: 659: 642: 587: 581: 456:Computer science 385:Article requests 374: 367: 366: 354: 346: 345: 342: 339: 336: 335:Computer science 326:Computer science 315: 308: 307: 301:Computer science 297: 290: 278: 277: 274: 271: 268: 239: 232: 231: 221: 214: 191: 190: 189: 182: 174: 168: 163: 157: 152: 146: 134: 133: 127: 50: 33: 23: 16: 5865: 5864: 5860: 5859: 5858: 5856: 5855: 5854: 5815: 5814: 5795: 5772: 5709: 5588: 5552: 5550: 5541: 5540:it has begun... 5527: 5501: 5499: 5476: 5460: 5456: 5445: 5439: 5386: 5360: 5178: 5159:256/512 MiB/GiB 5114: 5103: 5097: 5046: 5040: 4967: 4961: 4935: 4865: 4747: 4715: 4701: 4699: 4650: 4517: 4513: 4502: 4474: 4175: 4124: 4078:sizing memories 4041: 3720: 3562: 3348: 3341: 3334: 3327: 3320: 3313: 3306: 3299: 3050: 3049: 3042: 3038: 3031: 3027: 3020: 3016: 2996: 2863: 2851: 2841: 2633: 2622: 2270:my edit summary 2268: 2198: 1419: 1123:"the tera page" 1011: 957: 893: 872: 866: 837: 831: 788: 709: 689: 655: 640: 618: 593: 590: 585: 579: 567:Project-related 562: 543: 524: 498: 479: 460: 441: 422: 398: 343: 340: 337: 334: 333: 275: 272: 269: 266: 265: 172: 166: 161: 155: 150: 144: 131: 121: 120: 90: 12: 11: 5: 5863: 5861: 5853: 5852: 5847: 5842: 5837: 5832: 5827: 5817: 5816: 5794: 5791: 5771: 5768: 5767: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5707: 5706: 5705: 5660: 5659: 5642: 5641: 5640: 5639:No, it is not. 5634: 5628: 5602: 5601: 5598: 5595: 5587: 5584: 5583: 5582: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5578: 5577: 5576: 5539: 5469: 5468: 5449: 5438: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5429: 5428: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5424: 5423: 5422: 5421: 5420: 5419: 5398:those prefixes 5325: 5324: 5323: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5315: 5314: 5313: 5312: 5311: 5292: 5162: 5156: 5150: 5093: 5086: 5081: 5076: 5029: 4976: 4934: 4931: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4927: 4864: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4802: 4767:Somerandomuser 4752:Somerandomuser 4746: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4628:Oh, yeah, and 4594: 4593: 4592: 4526: 4525: 4506: 4473: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4444: 4443: 4416: 4415: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4188: 4123: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4040: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4003: 3996: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3970: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3935: 3934: 3910: 3909: 3904: 3899: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3818: 3785: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3748: 3745: 3742: 3719: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3620: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3281: 3275: 3258: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3074: 3073: 3056:28 April 2021 3048: 3047: 3036: 3025: 3013: 3012: 3008: 2995: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2972: 2971: 2961:Somerandomuser 2953: 2952: 2926: 2925: 2884: 2883: 2880: 2877: 2874: 2862: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2849: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2631: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2528: 2527: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2239: 2238: 2209: 2208: 2205: 2197: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 1981: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1968: 1930: 1916: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1870: 1869: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1552: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1191: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1050: 1049: 1010: 1007: 992: 991: 956: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 931: 930: 892: 889: 888: 887: 861:Also, reading 858: 857: 787: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 750: 749: 734: 733: 708: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 617: 614: 611: 610: 607: 606: 603: 602: 599: 598: 595: 594: 592: 591: 589: 588: 571: 563: 561: 560: 554: 544: 542: 541: 535: 525: 523: 522: 517: 509: 499: 497: 496: 490: 480: 478: 477: 471: 461: 459: 458: 452: 442: 440: 439: 433: 423: 421: 420: 415: 409: 399: 397: 396: 390: 378: 376: 375: 363: 362: 350: 349: 347: 330:the discussion 316: 304: 303: 298: 286: 285: 282: 281: 279: 262:the discussion 240: 228: 227: 222: 210: 209: 203: 192: 178: 177: 176: 175: 164: 153: 141: 140: 135: 123: 122: 119: 118: 111: 106: 97: 91: 89: 88: 77: 68: 67: 64: 63: 62: 46: 45: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5862: 5851: 5848: 5846: 5843: 5841: 5838: 5836: 5833: 5831: 5828: 5826: 5823: 5822: 5820: 5813: 5812: 5808: 5804: 5800: 5792: 5790: 5789: 5785: 5781: 5780:Dondervogel 2 5777: 5769: 5763: 5760: 5756: 5752: 5748: 5744: 5743: 5742: 5739: 5735: 5731: 5727: 5723: 5719: 5713: 5712:Dondervogel 2 5708: 5704: 5701: 5697: 5693: 5688: 5684: 5680: 5677: 5676: 5675: 5671: 5667: 5662: 5661: 5658: 5655: 5651: 5647: 5643: 5638: 5635: 5632: 5629: 5626: 5622: 5619: 5618: 5617: 5616: 5615: 5614: 5610: 5606: 5605:Dondervogel 2 5599: 5596: 5593: 5592: 5591: 5585: 5575: 5571: 5567: 5563: 5558: 5549: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5542: 5537: 5531: 5526: 5525: 5524: 5520: 5516: 5512: 5507: 5498: 5497: 5496: 5495: 5492: 5488: 5484: 5479: 5474: 5466: 5463:parameter to 5454: 5450: 5443: 5442: 5436: 5418: 5415: 5411: 5407: 5403: 5399: 5397: 5390: 5385: 5384: 5383: 5379: 5375: 5370: 5364: 5359: 5358: 5357: 5354: 5350: 5346: 5342: 5340: 5334: 5330: 5326: 5310: 5306: 5302: 5298: 5293: 5291: 5288: 5284: 5280: 5276: 5275: 5274: 5270: 5266: 5265:Dondervogel 2 5261: 5260: 5259: 5255: 5251: 5247: 5243: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5232: 5228: 5227:Dondervogel 2 5224: 5220: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5210: 5206: 5202: 5201: 5200: 5196: 5192: 5191:Dondervogel 2 5188: 5182: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5171: 5167: 5163: 5160: 5157: 5155:: 5,840 hits. 5154: 5153:256/512 MB/GB 5151: 5147: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5137: 5133: 5132:Dondervogel 2 5129: 5127: 5124: 5118: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5106: 5102: 5101: 5094: 5091: 5090:Binary prefix 5087: 5085: 5082: 5080: 5077: 5074: 5073: 5072: 5069: 5065: 5061: 5056: 5055: 5054: 5049: 5045: 5044: 5038: 5034: 5030: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5022: 5018: 5014: 5010: 5005: 5003: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4992: 4988: 4984: 4980: 4977: 4975: 4970: 4966: 4965: 4959: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4949: 4945: 4941: 4932: 4926: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4909: 4905: 4901: 4897: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4886: 4882: 4881:Dondervogel 2 4878: 4874: 4870: 4869:'Traditional' 4856: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4841: 4837: 4833: 4829: 4825: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4815: 4811: 4806: 4803: 4801: 4798: 4794: 4790: 4785: 4781: 4780:Strong oppose 4778: 4777: 4776: 4772: 4768: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4757: 4753: 4744: 4738: 4735: 4731: 4727: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4718: 4712: 4707: 4698: 4694: 4691: 4687: 4683: 4679: 4671: 4668: 4664: 4660: 4654: 4653:Dondervogel 2 4649: 4648: 4647: 4643: 4639: 4638:Dondervogel 2 4635: 4631: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4622: 4618: 4614: 4610: 4609:WP:NOTSILENCE 4605: 4604: 4603: 4600: 4595: 4591: 4588: 4584: 4580: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4570: 4566: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4541: 4537: 4533: 4523: 4520:parameter to 4511: 4507: 4500: 4499: 4496: 4495: 4492: 4488: 4484: 4480: 4479:WP:NOTSILENCE 4471: 4463: 4459: 4455: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4442: 4438: 4434: 4429: 4425: 4421: 4418: 4417: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4402: 4399: 4398: 4377: 4374: 4370: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4354: 4350: 4346: 4342: 4338: 4334: 4330: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4321: 4317: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4284:Dondervogel 2 4281: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4272: 4268: 4264: 4260: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4245:Dondervogel 2 4242: 4241: 4240: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4218: 4214: 4213:Dondervogel 2 4210: 4209: 4208: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4186: 4179: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4168: 4164: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4153: 4149: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4133: 4132: 4127: 4121: 4113: 4110: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4082:Sizing memory 4079: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4070: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4038: 4030: 4027: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4011:Dondervogel 2 4009: 4004: 4001: 3997: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3987: 3983: 3978: 3974: 3971: 3968: 3965: 3964: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3932: 3929: 3928: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3914:Dondervogel 2 3908: 3905: 3903: 3900: 3898: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3864: 3861: 3857: 3852: 3847: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3837: 3833: 3832:Dondervogel 2 3829: 3828: 3827: 3824: 3819: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3804:Dondervogel 2 3800: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3790: 3786: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3757:Dondervogel 2 3754: 3749: 3746: 3743: 3740: 3739: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3717: 3701: 3698: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3682:Dondervogel 2 3678: 3677: 3676: 3673: 3668: 3664: 3663:Dondervogel 2 3661: 3660: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3642: 3639:years later, 3637: 3633: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3610:Dondervogel 2 3607: 3604:JEDEC has an 3603: 3602: 3601: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3566: 3561: 3557: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3511: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3423:Dondervogel 2 3419: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3357:Dondervogel 2 3352: 3345: 3338: 3331: 3324: 3317: 3310: 3303: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3282: 3280: 3276: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3263: 3259: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3174:Dondervogel 2 3171: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3121: 3117: 3116:Dondervogel 2 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3063:Dondervogel 2 3059: 3058: 3057: 3055: 3045: 3040: 3037: 3034: 3029: 3026: 3023: 3018: 3015: 3011: 3006: 3003: 3000: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2974: 2973: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2955: 2954: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2938:Binary prefix 2935: 2931: 2928: 2927: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2915:Dondervogel 2 2912: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2895:162.74.52.147 2892: 2881: 2878: 2875: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2868: 2860: 2856: 2853: 2852: 2846: 2844: 2838: 2834: 2828: 2825: 2824: 2821: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2797: 2796: 2793: 2787: 2786: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2669: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2637: 2632: 2626: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2579: 2576: 2575: 2572: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2526: 2523: 2522: 2519: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2500: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2484:Dondervogel 2 2480: 2476: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2317:Dondervogel 2 2314: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2271: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2256: 2253: 2252: 2249: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2213:Dondervogel 2 2206: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2195: 2191: 2188: 2187: 2184: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2170: 2165: 2164: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2089: 2088: 2085: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2010: 2007: 2006: 2003: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1972: 1969: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1920: 1914: 1902: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1868: 1865: 1864: 1861: 1855: 1854: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1568: 1567: 1564: 1559: 1556: 1553: 1551: 1548: 1547: 1544: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1483: 1480: 1479: 1476: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1458: 1457: 1454: 1449: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1422: 1417: 1412: 1411:edit conflict 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1325: 1322: 1321: 1318: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1300: 1298: 1296: 1294: 1292: 1290: 1288: 1286: 1284: 1282: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1201: 1196: 1192: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1153:Dondervogel 2 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1093:here for giga 1090: 1089:here for mega 1086: 1085:here for kilo 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1048: 1045: 1044: 1041: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1023:Dondervogel 2 1020: 1019:Talk:terabyte 1016: 1008: 1006: 1005: 1001: 997: 990: 986: 982: 978: 977: 976: 975: 971: 967: 963: 962:User:Frietjes 954: 948: 944: 940: 939:Dondervogel 2 935: 934: 933: 932: 929: 925: 921: 917: 916:WP:COMMONNAME 913: 912: 911: 910: 906: 902: 901:Dondervogel 2 898: 890: 886: 882: 878: 871: 864: 860: 859: 854: 853: 852: 851: 847: 843: 836: 827: 825: 819: 817: 812: 808: 803: 801: 797: 793: 785: 779: 775: 771: 770:Dondervogel 2 766: 762: 758: 754: 753: 752: 751: 748: 744: 740: 736: 735: 730: 726: 725: 724: 723: 719: 715: 714:Dondervogel 2 706: 698: 695: 692: 688: 683: 679: 675: 674: 673: 669: 665: 661: 658: 651: 650: 649: 646: 643: 639: 634: 633: 632: 631: 627: 623: 616:-ibi-bollocks 615: 584: 577: 573: 572: 570: 568: 564: 559: 556: 555: 553: 551: 550: 545: 540: 537: 536: 534: 532: 531: 526: 521: 518: 515: 511: 510: 508: 506: 505: 500: 495: 492: 491: 489: 487: 486: 481: 476: 473: 472: 470: 468: 467: 462: 457: 454: 453: 451: 449: 448: 443: 438: 435: 434: 432: 430: 429: 424: 419: 416: 414: 411: 410: 408: 406: 405: 400: 395: 392: 391: 389: 387: 386: 381: 380: 377: 373: 369: 368: 365: 364: 360: 356: 355: 351: 348: 331: 327: 323: 322: 317: 314: 310: 309: 305: 302: 299: 296: 292: 280: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 246: 241: 238: 234: 233: 229: 226: 223: 220: 216: 211: 207: 201: 197: 193: 184: 183: 171: 165: 160: 154: 149: 143: 142: 138: 137: 136: 129: 128: 116: 112: 110: 107: 105: 101: 98: 96: 93: 92: 86: 82: 81:Learn to edit 78: 75: 70: 69: 66: 65: 60: 56: 52: 51: 43: 39: 38: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 5796: 5793:New prefixes 5773: 5770:New proposal 5726:WP:COMPUNITS 5722:WP:COMPUNITS 5603: 5589: 5556: 5505: 5481:Thank you. — 5480: 5475: 5472: 5464: 5453:edit request 5402:more notable 5401: 5395: 5368: 5337:Articles on 5329:undue weight 5186: 5099: 5042: 5036: 5032: 5001: 4982: 4978: 4963: 4958:occasionally 4957: 4936: 4866: 4842: 4823: 4804: 4783: 4779: 4748: 4705: 4529: 4521: 4510:edit request 4475: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4400: 4360: 4336: 4332: 4258: 4135: 4134: 4129: 4128: 4125: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4048: 4044: 4042: 3943: 3911: 3891: 3845: 3666: 3645: 3640: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3592: 3541:undue weight 3518: 3490: 3436: 3418:undue weight 3399: 3278: 3261: 3242: 3233: 3080:be removed. 3051: 3039: 3028: 3017: 3007: 3004: 3001: 2997: 2975: 2956: 2929: 2889:— Preceding 2885: 2864: 2848: 2842: 2818: 2790: 2667: 2645: 2641: 2594:WP:SKYISBLUE 2569: 2539:WP:SKYISBLUE 2516: 2503: 2472: 2439: 2435: 2427: 2267:As noted in 2246: 2210: 2199: 2181: 2173: 2167: 2082: 2077: 2073: 2051: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2000: 1937: 1912: 1911: 1900: 1858: 1644: 1640: 1561: 1541: 1473: 1464:You can ask 1451: 1363: 1359: 1315: 1270:This revert 1096: 1038: 1012: 993: 958: 894: 829: 823: 821: 804: 792:WP:COMPUNITS 789: 756: 710: 686: 656: 637: 622:Boatmurdered 619: 566: 565: 549:Unreferenced 547: 546: 528: 527: 502: 501: 483: 482: 464: 463: 445: 444: 426: 425: 402: 401: 383: 382: 319: 243: 206:WikiProjects 195: 53:This is the 41: 35: 32:26 June 2021 5560:that, too, 4076:The phrase 3630:, to which 3054:User:Thegiz 1468:about that 1099:tera until 765:IBM article 5819:Categories 5751:Locke Cole 5730:Locke Cole 5692:Locke Cole 5646:Locke Cole 5536:* Pppery * 5511:Locke Cole 5483:Locke Cole 5457:|answered= 5406:Locke Cole 5396:mentioning 5369:mentioning 5363:Locke Cole 5345:Locke Cole 5339:neologisms 5279:Locke Cole 5221:and 52 on 5161:: 37 hits. 5117:Stepho-wrs 5060:Locke Cole 5013:Locke Cole 4940:Locke Cole 4900:Locke Cole 4789:Locke Cole 4726:Locke Cole 4682:Locke Cole 4659:Locke Cole 4634:canvassing 4613:Locke Cole 4579:Locke Cole 4532:Locke Cole 4514:|answered= 4483:Locke Cole 4365:Locke Cole 4337:JEDEC says 4298:Locke Cole 4263:Locke Cole 4228:Locke Cole 4196:Locke Cole 4144:Locke Cole 4122:Deprecated 3771:deprecated 3576:Locke Cole 3545:Locke Cole 3441:Locke Cole 3400:definition 3337:Cybercobra 3243:DEPRECATED 2440:definition 2428:definition 2309:brontobyte 1470:WP:PAYWALL 1426:WP:PAYWALL 1275:WP:PAYWALL 842:Mitch Ames 763:cites one 37:discussion 5666:Woodstone 5244:and make 4810:Woodstone 4550:Jonesey95 4472:Consensus 4405:Elizium23 4359:which is 3851:WP:ENGVAR 3799:Woodstone 3741:No change 3458:Woodstone 3344:Quantling 3323:Swtpc6800 3302:Woodstone 2942:Woodstone 2508:Swtpc6800 2436:mentioned 1986:SWTPC6800 1976:SEC_COUNT 1878:SWTPC6800 1466:Swtpc6800 1356:this page 1105:this page 1101:this page 1015:this edit 996:Woodstone 966:Woodstone 870:cite book 437:Computing 267:Computing 254:computing 250:computers 225:Computing 117:if needed 100:Be polite 61:template. 55:talk page 4873:'Memory' 4716:xaosflux 4706:Not done 4353:WP:ECREE 4185:this URL 4086:memories 4045:memories 3667:avoiding 2891:unsigned 2805:Glider87 2760:contribs 2738:Glider87 2727:contribs 2705:Glider87 2695:contribs 2673:Glider87 2658:contribs 2636:Glider87 2625:Fnagaton 2598:Glider87 2551:contribs 2535:Fnagaton 2479:his sock 2452:contribs 2386:Glider87 2355:contribs 2313:geopbyte 2283:contribs 2228:Glider87 2134:Glider87 2119:Glider87 2105:contribs 2064:contribs 2043:mentions 2035:mentions 1958:Glider87 1814:Glider87 1787:Glider87 1658:contribs 1645:mentions 1532:contribs 1438:contribs 1416:Fnagaton 1304:Glider87 1278:values. 1242:contribs 1203:Glider87 1181:Glider87 1066:contribs 981:Frietjes 800:restored 678:Kilobyte 668:contribs 660:uantling 485:Maintain 428:Copyedit 196:template 170:Bitrates 139:See also 85:get help 28:deletion 5146:730,000 5100:Stepho 5043:Stepho 4964:Stepho 4877:'JEDEC' 4805:Oppose: 4599:Quondum 4428:leading 4401:Comment 4109:Quondum 4088:, just 4069:Quondum 4051:. Why? 4026:Quondum 3986:Quondum 3860:Quondum 3823:Quondum 3789:Quondum 3697:Quondum 3672:Quondum 3648:entry. 3597:Quondum 3565:Quondum 3510:Quondum 2886:--: --> 2512:WP:NPOV 2426:to the 2115:JESD88E 2074:defines 2052:defines 2039:defines 1810:WP:NPOV 1801:JESD88E 1421:pulling 1418:, IMHO 1097:defines 835:selfref 809:is not 796:removed 761:exabyte 729:defines 466:Infobox 404:Cleanup 5562:Pppery 5509:that, 5333:WP:NEO 4979:Oppose 4843:Oppose 4808:idea?− 4784:do not 4630:Greg_L 4565:kbrose 4454:kbrose 4433:Greg L 4424:follow 4361:policy 4316:kbrose 4178:Kbrose 4163:kbrose 4094:kbrose 4090:memory 4053:kbrose 4049:memory 4043:Using 3948:kbrose 3775:kbrose 3650:kbrose 3593:per se 3523:kbrose 3519:define 3494:Greg L 3404:kbrose 3351:Thegiz 3330:Jc3s5h 3309:Dsimic 3286:kbrose 3265:kbrose 3247:kbrose 3140:kbrose 3082:kbrose 2976:Oppose 2957:Oppose 2930:Oppose 2752:Dsimic 2719:Dsimic 2687:Dsimic 2650:Dsimic 2543:Dsimic 2475:Dsimic 2444:Dsimic 2347:Dsimic 2305:Dsimic 2275:Dsimic 2097:Dsimic 2056:Dsimic 2047:define 1956:wrong. 1650:Dsimic 1641:define 1524:Dsimic 1430:Dsimic 1364:define 1234:Dsimic 1091:, and 1058:Dsimic 877:Jc3s5h 739:Jc3s5h 694:(talk) 645:(talk) 447:Expand 256:, and 202:scale. 5745:I'll 5461:|ans= 5451:This 5389:Zac67 5374:Zac67 5223:SDRAM 5000:they 4987:Zac67 4917:Zac67 4847:Zac67 4518:|ans= 4508:This 4000:SDRAM 3856:WP:LQ 3846:based 3624:LISTS 2980:Zac67 2592:From 1805:WP:OR 1312:WP:RS 1308:WP:OR 1200:WP:RS 1195:WP:OR 690:cobra 687:Cyber 684:). -- 641:cobra 638:Cyber 530:Stubs 504:Photo 361:with: 194:This 113:Seek 40:was " 5807:talk 5803:NebY 5784:talk 5670:talk 5633:Yes. 5623:See 5609:talk 5570:talk 5557:Done 5519:talk 5506:Done 5378:talk 5305:talk 5301:NebY 5269:talk 5254:talk 5250:NebY 5231:talk 5209:talk 5205:NebY 5195:talk 5181:NebY 5170:talk 5166:NebY 5136:talk 5105:talk 5048:talk 5037:ever 5033:must 5009:WP:V 4991:talk 4969:talk 4921:talk 4885:talk 4875:and 4851:talk 4832:talk 4828:NebY 4814:talk 4771:talk 4756:talk 4642:talk 4569:talk 4554:talk 4458:talk 4437:talk 4409:talk 4357:WP:V 4320:talk 4288:talk 4249:talk 4217:talk 4167:talk 4098:talk 4057:talk 4015:talk 3952:talk 3944:norm 3918:talk 3836:talk 3808:talk 3779:talk 3761:talk 3686:talk 3654:talk 3646:giga 3641:tera 3636:tera 3632:giga 3628:mega 3614:talk 3527:talk 3498:talk 3462:talk 3427:talk 3408:talk 3361:talk 3290:talk 3269:talk 3251:talk 3178:talk 3144:talk 3120:talk 3110:and 3086:talk 3067:talk 2984:talk 2965:talk 2946:talk 2936:and 2934:Byte 2919:talk 2899:talk 2843:Reyk 2837:lame 2823:aton 2820:Fnag 2809:talk 2795:aton 2792:Fnag 2756:talk 2742:talk 2723:talk 2709:talk 2691:talk 2677:talk 2654:talk 2646:mega 2642:kilo 2602:talk 2574:aton 2571:Fnag 2547:talk 2521:aton 2518:Fnag 2488:talk 2448:talk 2442:. — 2390:talk 2351:talk 2321:talk 2311:and 2279:talk 2251:aton 2248:Fnag 2232:talk 2217:talk 2186:aton 2183:Fnag 2138:talk 2123:talk 2101:talk 2087:aton 2084:Fnag 2060:talk 2005:aton 2002:Fnag 1990:talk 1962:talk 1947:talk 1938:link 1882:talk 1863:aton 1860:Fnag 1818:talk 1791:talk 1725:talk 1654:talk 1583:talk 1566:aton 1563:Fnag 1557:and 1546:aton 1543:Fnag 1528:talk 1478:aton 1475:Fnag 1456:aton 1453:Fnag 1448:here 1434:talk 1424:the 1372:talk 1320:aton 1317:Fnag 1310:and 1238:talk 1207:talk 1185:talk 1157:talk 1131:talk 1062:talk 1043:aton 1040:Fnag 1027:talk 1000:talk 985:talk 970:talk 943:talk 924:talk 905:talk 881:talk 846:talk 774:talk 757:used 743:talk 718:talk 664:talk 626:talk 102:and 42:keep 5749:. — 5459:or 5011:. — 5002:are 4983:are 4611:. — 4516:or 4363:. — 3622:It 3316:Jeh 2940:. − 2879:... 2850:YO! 2668:you 2245:do. 1943:Jeh 1721:Jeh 1579:Jeh 1368:Jeh 1360:use 1127:Jeh 1087:, 920:Jeh 826:... 30:on 5821:: 5809:) 5801:. 5786:) 5757:• 5753:• 5736:• 5732:• 5698:• 5694:• 5672:) 5652:• 5648:• 5611:) 5572:) 5564:. 5521:) 5513:. 5489:• 5485:• 5465:no 5412:• 5408:• 5380:) 5372:-- 5351:• 5347:• 5307:) 5299:. 5285:• 5281:• 5271:) 5256:) 5233:) 5211:) 5197:) 5172:) 5138:) 5130:. 5066:• 5062:• 5019:• 5015:• 4993:) 4946:• 4942:• 4923:) 4906:• 4902:• 4887:) 4871:, 4853:) 4834:) 4816:) 4795:• 4791:• 4773:) 4758:) 4732:• 4728:• 4688:• 4684:• 4665:• 4661:• 4644:) 4636:? 4619:• 4615:• 4585:• 4581:• 4571:) 4556:) 4538:• 4534:• 4522:no 4489:• 4485:• 4460:) 4439:) 4411:) 4371:• 4367:• 4339:. 4322:) 4304:• 4300:• 4290:) 4269:• 4265:• 4251:) 4234:• 4230:• 4219:) 4202:• 4198:• 4169:) 4150:• 4146:• 4100:) 4059:) 4017:) 3954:) 3920:) 3838:) 3810:) 3781:) 3763:) 3688:) 3656:) 3616:) 3582:• 3578:• 3551:• 3547:• 3529:) 3500:) 3464:) 3447:• 3443:• 3429:) 3410:) 3363:) 3355:. 3292:) 3271:) 3253:) 3180:) 3146:) 3106:, 3088:) 3069:) 2986:) 2967:) 2948:) 2921:) 2913:. 2901:) 2811:) 2762:) 2758:| 2744:) 2729:) 2725:| 2711:) 2697:) 2693:| 2679:) 2660:) 2656:| 2644:, 2604:) 2553:) 2549:| 2490:) 2454:) 2450:| 2392:) 2357:) 2353:| 2323:) 2285:) 2281:| 2234:) 2219:) 2140:) 2125:) 2107:) 2103:| 2066:) 2062:| 1992:) 1984:-- 1964:) 1949:) 1884:) 1820:) 1793:) 1727:) 1660:) 1656:| 1648:— 1585:) 1534:) 1530:| 1440:) 1436:| 1374:) 1314:. 1244:) 1240:| 1232:— 1209:) 1187:) 1159:) 1133:) 1068:) 1064:| 1029:) 1002:) 987:) 972:) 945:) 926:) 907:) 883:) 873:}} 867:{{ 848:) 838:}} 832:{{ 776:) 745:) 720:) 670:) 666:| 628:) 586:}} 580:{{ 252:, 173:}} 167:{{ 162:}} 156:{{ 151:}} 145:{{ 83:; 44:". 5805:( 5782:( 5759:c 5755:t 5738:c 5734:t 5714:: 5710:@ 5700:c 5696:t 5690:— 5668:( 5654:c 5650:t 5644:— 5607:( 5568:( 5532:: 5528:@ 5517:( 5491:c 5487:t 5414:c 5410:t 5391:: 5387:@ 5376:( 5365:: 5361:@ 5353:c 5349:t 5303:( 5287:c 5283:t 5267:( 5252:( 5229:( 5207:( 5193:( 5183:: 5179:@ 5168:( 5134:( 5119:: 5115:@ 5068:c 5064:t 5021:c 5017:t 4989:( 4948:c 4944:t 4919:( 4908:c 4904:t 4883:( 4849:( 4830:( 4812:( 4797:c 4793:t 4787:— 4769:( 4754:( 4734:c 4730:t 4690:c 4686:t 4667:c 4663:t 4655:: 4651:@ 4640:( 4621:c 4617:t 4587:c 4583:t 4567:( 4552:( 4540:c 4536:t 4491:c 4487:t 4456:( 4435:( 4407:( 4373:c 4369:t 4318:( 4306:c 4302:t 4286:( 4271:c 4267:t 4247:( 4236:c 4232:t 4226:— 4215:( 4204:c 4200:t 4180:: 4176:@ 4165:( 4152:c 4148:t 4107:— 4096:( 4055:( 4013:( 3984:— 3950:( 3916:( 3834:( 3806:( 3777:( 3759:( 3684:( 3670:— 3652:( 3612:( 3584:c 3580:t 3567:: 3563:@ 3553:c 3549:t 3525:( 3496:( 3460:( 3449:c 3445:t 3425:( 3406:( 3359:( 3353:: 3349:@ 3346:: 3342:@ 3339:: 3335:@ 3332:: 3328:@ 3325:: 3321:@ 3318:: 3314:@ 3311:: 3307:@ 3304:: 3300:@ 3288:( 3267:( 3249:( 3176:( 3170:T 3142:( 3122:) 3118:( 3112:G 3108:M 3104:K 3084:( 3065:( 2982:( 2963:( 2944:( 2917:( 2897:( 2807:( 2754:( 2740:( 2721:( 2707:( 2689:( 2675:( 2652:( 2638:: 2634:@ 2627:: 2623:@ 2600:( 2545:( 2486:( 2473:@ 2446:( 2388:( 2349:( 2319:( 2303:@ 2277:( 2230:( 2215:( 2136:( 2121:( 2099:( 2058:( 1988:( 1980:. 1960:( 1945:( 1880:( 1816:( 1789:( 1723:( 1652:( 1581:( 1526:( 1432:( 1413:) 1409:( 1370:( 1236:( 1205:( 1183:( 1155:( 1129:( 1107:. 1060:( 1025:( 998:( 983:( 968:( 941:( 922:( 903:( 879:( 844:( 772:( 741:( 716:( 662:( 657:Q 653:— 624:( 569:: 552:: 533:: 516:) 507:: 488:: 469:: 450:: 431:: 407:: 388:: 208:: 87:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index