180:
right that the SI doesn't define units of information, it definitely defines prefixes, and the SI is a very important standard worldwide. That being said, I didn't assert that JEDEC has to follow the SI, but rather that it is important to mention that it doesn't follow it since it's using the exact same prefixes and since the SI is so important worldwide, and that is a fact. Actually the fact that JEDEC is still mentioned there is extremely POV for me, but unfortunately, I don't expect many people to accept its removal. So I left the column JEDEC in the hope it would be easier to get it accepted. Here's the source: JEDEC Solid State
Technology Association (December 2002). "JEDEC Standard No. 100B.01 – Terms, Definitions, and Letter Symbols for Microcomputers, Microprocessors, and Memory Integrated Circuits" (PDF). p. 8. Retrieved 2010-03-07. "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.”" (Requires free registration and login.) Where should I have mentionned this source? Actually, I have more sources if needed.
343:
of, and also the one occupying the
British Isles). However, that is not how WP is written. WP is not in the business of promoting one standard or usage over another, nor of "calling out" those who use prefixes in ways not accordance with any particular standard. What WP is in the business of is of documenting the real world, as described in reliable sources. Standards are part of the real world, of course, but so are usages that don't comply with them, particularly when they're completely pervasive within one product area... as the JEDEC prefixes are for RAM. (And just by the way, "KB" meaning 1024 bytes is not contradictory to SI, because the SI prefix for 1000 is "k", not "K". So
198:? Weasel words sometimes dress a sentence with authority, while implying something that is not backed with source. As such, weasel words have serious NPOV problems. For example, pretend this sentence appears in an article about ACME Corp: "In January 2222, ACME Corp hired Ms. X, the first female translator ever." Unless the writer had a crazy love for number one or things that are first, this sentence means to imply that there is something noteworthy about a woman being hired; e.g. ACME has been committing gender discrimination until then, or the woman had used a leverage beyond shear competence to get hired.
179:
I'm not even sure this is the right way to reply to someone... anyway let's try this. Hello. Actually, JEDEC has never recommended to use these prefixes, it has merely acknowledged their "common usage", right before mentioning the SI value of those, and the fact that they are deprecated. While you're
342:
The footnote is furthermore inappropriate, because it is denigrating JEDEC prefixes in favor of SI. Your position seems to be that it is appropriate for WP to promote SI over JEDEC, because of SI's near-universal acceptance (well, except for that little country in North
America you might have heard
298:
semiconductor memory. Just try to find a RAM chip, or a DIMM, or a modern computer, whose RAM capacity is quoted using SI prefixes! The JEDEC prefixes are the only game on Earth for this product area. In fact, so pervasive are they, that many believe that other computer products such as hard drives
262:
2 Highly NPOV facts: 1) the SI is almost the only game on Earth for measurement units and prefixes (it seems like you don't grasp this correctly), 2) The computer industry and it's usage of the SI prefixes as binary is a tiny fraction of the world's usage of SI prefixes. They are almost always used
211:
Your sentence is like that. Suddenly out of nowhere, you have said "inconsistent with SI system". Well who said they are? Unless you have a love for spotting indiscriminate inconsistencies, you are implying that they must have been consistent because SI has patented the Greek and Latin prefixes for
455:
Thanks to you for his helpful comment about how to respond to a revert. It's definitely not obvious. In my opinion, it should be explicited for the new users at the "point-of-greatest-pertinence", which is in the history page, rather than just showing the regular "undo". Where should I make that
385:
I couldn't say it better. I am afraid, Compvis, use of "SI prefixes" phrase to refer to "Latin and Greek prefixes" might be an indicator of near-fanatical POV. In addition, per
Knowledge verifiability policy, as long SI does not officially put computing units in its scopes, the matter of
85:
I do recognize its authority over things that it's apt to decide, and the SI, as possibly the most widely adopted standard, is not one of those. You seem to drastically underestimate it. In addition, I do think that
Knowledge does not have the same opinion it did many years ago.
293:
Regarding "similar footing", you would have a point (at least, a dull one) if these templates were used in articles outside of the computer field. But they are not. And within the computer field, JEDEC prefixes most certainly enjoy a "similar footing" to SI
432:
Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion.
320:
The footnote is unnecessary, because the inconsistency with SI is self-evident from the table: You have the JEDEC column, and you have the "metric" column, and in two (but not all) cases they use the same prefix with different
164:
as an attempt to promote an unjustified point of view without a source. If you think JEDEC must have something to do with SI and their failure to comply is worth mentioning, please supply a source to that effect. Best regards,
263:
as powers of 10. So either we remove the JEDEC column or we cannot not mention this inconsistency with the SI. It would be dishonest and highly POV to present JEDEC as if it were on a similar footing as the metric prefixes.
40:
Sorry, but I think the consensus you're talking about, which may or may not have existed in the past, is currently inexistent. Actually the opposite consensus exists. Except for three contries (including the US), the
133:
45:
has been adopted unanimously worldwide. It doesn't define an exception for solid-state storage. This is the NPOV and this is where the defiance is. The SI is not a matter of consensus on
Knowledge.
63:
Since you will not recognize
Knowledge's authority to establish its own house style, further interaction with you will take place through dispute resolution processes.
194:
That source is only good for a proposal about removing JEDEC's name from the column. What I said was different. Let me clarify my NPOV point: Are you familiar with
426:
if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus.
156:
Hello, Compvis. Computing units are not part of the base units defined by SI, nor are derived units. I cannot help but view your recent edits in
233:
others or being civil in general. Although, if you insist on greeting the same person only once per discussion, that's totally okay.
299:
either are, or somehow ought to be, marketed using JEDEC prefixes as well! (It seems as if you don't, or refuse to, grasp this).
161:
42:
157:
229:
Oh, and by the way: Are you having reservations about saying "Hi?" Well, don't. There is nothing wrong about
391:
253:
170:
140:
116:
124:
Neither
Knowledge consensus nor your edits against it have changed. I've brought your latest efforts in
129:
22:
387:
249:
166:
137:
113:
195:
125:
68:
30:
25:
binary prefixes archives and undo the recent edits you made in defiance of that consensus.
213:
108:
were never used in
English-language reliable sources. If that has changed, the consensus
423:, after your edits have been reverted, you should go to discussion. Not revert again.
445:
420:
413:
356:
134:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision
457:
436:
I have explained, point by point, my rationale for reverting your edit to the lede
264:
181:
87:
46:
64:
26:
105:
101:
441:
352:
230:
216:. If the latter is the case, you need to provide a source to that effect.
437:
465:
449:
395:
360:
272:
257:
189:
174:
143:
132:
for comments, although I would be justified in blocking you, due to
119:
95:
72:
54:
34:
351:
it would be wrong to apply it to the JEDEC column header.)
386:
compatibility and consistency is moot. Best regards,
136:. Consider this a warning under that provision. —
214:Knowledge does not publish indiscriminate info
212:its exclusive use. If the former is the case,
100:We could revisit the matter, but, at the time
8:
296:within their particular application area:
347:even if the footnote was acceptable,
7:
21:Follow the consensus expressed in
14:
440:. Please reply there. Thank you.
162:Template:Bit and byte prefixes
1:
144:17:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
43:International System of Units
429:Also, from the same page,
158:Template:Quantities of bits
482:
120:03:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
96:00:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
73:00:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
55:00:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
35:23:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
466:21:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
450:09:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
396:11:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
361:09:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
273:07:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
258:07:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
190:04:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
175:02:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
461:
268:
185:
91:
50:
112:be revisited. —
473:
17:Follow consensus
481:
480:
476:
475:
474:
472:
471:
470:
434:
427:
417:
345:(edit - added:)
19:
12:
11:
5:
479:
477:
469:
468:
431:
425:
416:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
247:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
148:
147:
146:
78:
77:
76:
75:
58:
57:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
478:
467:
463:
459:
454:
453:
452:
451:
447:
443:
439:
430:
424:
422:
415:
414:Binary prefix
411:
397:
393:
389:
388:Codename Lisa
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
297:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
274:
270:
266:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
250:Codename Lisa
248:
246:Best regards,
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
232:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
215:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
205:
197:
193:
192:
191:
187:
183:
178:
177:
176:
172:
168:
167:Codename Lisa
163:
159:
155:
145:
142:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
122:
121:
118:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:
97:
93:
89:
84:
83:
82:
81:
80:
79:
74:
70:
66:
62:
61:
60:
59:
56:
52:
48:
44:
39:
38:
37:
36:
32:
28:
24:
16:
456:suggestion?
435:
428:
418:
412:The lede at
348:
344:
295:
196:weasel words
138:Arthur Rubin
114:Arthur Rubin
109:
20:
349:(end edit)
321:meanings.
130:WT:MOSNUM
126:WP:MOSNUM
106:Gibibytes
102:Mebibytes
23:WT:MOSNUM
231:greeting
458:Compvis
265:Compvis
182:Compvis
88:Compvis
47:Compvis
421:WP:BRD
141:(talk)
117:(talk)
65:Jc3s5h
27:Jc3s5h
110:might
462:talk
446:talk
438:here
419:Per
392:talk
357:talk
269:talk
254:talk
186:talk
171:talk
160:and
104:and
92:talk
69:talk
51:talk
31:talk
442:Jeh
353:Jeh
128:to
464:)
448:)
394:)
359:)
271:)
256:)
188:)
173:)
94:)
71:)
53:)
33:)
460:(
444:(
390:(
355:(
267:(
252:(
184:(
169:(
90:(
67:(
49:(
29:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.