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

Revision as of 20:32, 26 January 2009

Revision as of 20:52, 26 January 2009

Line 802:

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

<strike>To declare '''bit''' to be the symbol for '''bit''' will not help in education, it will prevent spreading ''good'' knowledge.</strike>(Strike, because not clear what IEC says!) New: IMO WP should help spreading good knowledge and not an average of magazines and computer ads. [[User:TechControl|TechControl]] ([[User talk:TechControl|talk]]) 13:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

:TechControl, have you read ISO/IEC 80000 itself, rather than just descriptions and summaries of it? If so, what does it actually say about the symbol for bit? (I'm not going to shell out around $100 for a copy.) --[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] ([[User talk:Gerry Ashton|talk]]) 18:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

:: Good point Gerry. I fixed my last post. Even in WP one cannot find what IEC says. [http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=31898 iso.org says] "This standard cancels and replaces subclauses 3.8 and 3.9 of IEC 60027-2:2005. The only significant change is the addition of explicit definitions for some quantities." But here is the big news, if you cannot get the standard directly look for secondary sources. :'''http://www.google.com/search?q=bit+symbol+b+%22IEC+80000-13%22+-wikipedia''' - Thank you Saudi Arabia! The symbol in that standard is '''bit'''. I value IEC higher than IEEE. To bad this is only a pdf that is kind of obscure, and will be hard to reference from the [[Bit]] article. [[User:TechControl|TechControl]] ([[User talk:TechControl|talk]]) 20:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

== Son of autoformatting would expose us to an extremely risky experiment ==