Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
TechControl (talk | contribs) m →Symbol for bits: bit or b?: format |
Shreevatsa (talk | contribs) m moved my comment around, both because it was earlier and to avoid misinterpretation |
||
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 % 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. 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 [[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)
:* 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)▼
Actually we ''do'' write [[KiB]] (follow the link). This is standard writing. And so is '''b''' for bit. I quote [[ISO/IEC 80000]]:
Line 802 ⟶ 805:
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)
== Son of autoformatting would expose us to an extremely risky experiment ==
| |||