Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:44, 26 January 2009

Revision as of 13:47, 26 January 2009

Line 783:

* Most readers of Wikipedia’s computer articles read computer magazines and read computer advertisements. Most have no familiarity with the BIPM, NIST, IUPAP, or the IEC and haven’t a clue what those standards organizations say on various matters. The IEC, by the way, says we should be writing “kibibyte (KiB)”) but we ignore that advise because the real world doesn’t work that way.<p>It ''doesn’t matter'' what all these standard bodies say. To minimize confusion and communicate clearly, <u>Wikipedia should follow the practices observed in current, most-reliable literature on the subject.</u> If we wanted to follow what the BIPM says, we’d put a space before a percent symbol,like {{xt|At least 99&nbsp;% of readers ignore the BIPM and follow real-world practices}}, rather than what everyone actually writes: {{xt|At least 99% of readers ignore the BIPM and follow real-world practices}}. And MOSNUM, [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Percentages|here]], follows the real-world practice with respect to the percent symbol and ignores the BIPM on this issue <small>''(*sound of audience gasp*).''</small><p>We have ''got'' to stop acting like Talk:MOSNUM is a venue where the [[Spock|Mr.&nbsp;Spock]] in us all can glom onto each and every cool proposal that comes along and make Wikipedia ready to join the United Federation of Planets. If we did that, only about 2&nbsp;[[Parts-per_notation#Uno|centiuno]] of our readership would understand what is written here.<p>It’s simple: Editors should simply look towards current literature on the subject; each and every issue doesn’t have to come here for discussion and debate about “what’s the best way to do something in a utopian world.” We follow the proposals of standard bodies only '''''after''''' they are widely followed in the real world. Always. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually we ''do'' write [[KiB]] (follow the link). This is standard writing. And so is '''b''' for bit. I quote [[ISO/IEC 80000]]:

{{quotation|International standard ISO 80000 or IEC 80000 (depending on which of the two international standards bodies International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission is in charge of each respective part), successor of [[ISO 31]] and partially of [[IEC 60027]], is the '''most widely respected style guide for the use of physical quantities and units of measurement, and formulas involving them, in scientific and educational documents worldwide. In most countries, the notations used in mathematics and science textbooks at schools and universities follow closely the guidelines given by these standard.''}}

Another thing I found: ''It should be noted that the prefix before the number 80000 will be either ISO or IEC, but not a double ISO/IEC prefix.

The chairman of IEC TC 25, Anders J. Thor, has pointed out that there are four systems of writing that bridge all linguistic barriers regardless of the alphabet used. These systems are:

* the set of mathematical signs and symbols;

* the SI;

* the symbols for chemical elements; and

* the way of writing notes for music.

The fundamental importance of ISO/IEC 80000 is obvious because the first three systems will be given in this standard. It is only music that will be outside the scope of the future ISO/IEC 80000.''

Source: http://www.iec.ch/zone/si/si_present.htm

To declare '''bit''' to be the symbol for '''bit''' will not help in education, it will prevent spreading ''good'' knowledge. [[User:TechControl|TechControl]] ([[User talk:TechControl|talk]]) 13:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

:* I, for one, completely agree. Does 'current, most-reliable literature on the subject' use '''bit''' more commonly than '''b'''? [[User:Shreevatsa|Shreevatsa]] ([[User talk:Shreevatsa|talk]]) 13:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)