This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Byte article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Nakanob.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
In the section titled "Unit Symbol" there is an entire paragraph explaining that the symbol 'B' is the SI unit of the bel. This is not true.
Although often used with SI prefixes - e.g. decibel(dB) - the bel itself is not, nor can it ever be an SI unit itself, it is a dimensionless ratio. Because it is dimensionless, it is often necessary to indicate how it was calculated by adding an appropriate suffix (e.g. dBi, dBm) in order to make meaningful comparisons.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html
JNBBoytjie ( talk) 10:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
AFAICS 'unsigned char' is right. Based on the C Standard, (signed) char need only hold values between -127 and 127 inclusive, in other words only 255 distinct values. If you want a guarantee of 256 distinct values you need unsigned char. Ewx ( talk) 08:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
For the record, this is the text of 6.2.5#3:
Kbrose ( talk) 11:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Octet (computing) should be merged into Byte as Octlet (computing) is another name for Byte and Wikipedia does not have two articles for two names of the same thing (instead both are mentioned in the WP:LEAD and the article's title is at the WP:COMMONNAME). - KAP03( Talk • Contributions • Email) 22:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Off the tope of my head, these machines come to mind as supporting byte sizes other than 8
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 18:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The IBM 7030, for which the term byte was coined, did not include error checking bits as part of a byte. Nor did the DEC PDP-6, the CDC 3600, or any of the other computers with the ability to access bytes of various size. The System/360 Principles of Operation contains the text "Within certain units of the system, a bit-correction capability is provided by either appending additional check bits to a group of bytes or by converting the check bits of a group of bytes into an arrangement which provides for error checking and correction (ECC). The group of bytes associated with a single ECC code is called an ECC block. The number of bytes in an ECC block, and the manner in which the conversion or appending is accomplished depend on the type of unit involved and may vary among models." Accordingly, I call for the reinstatement of the text "The byte size designates only the data coding and excludes any parity or other error checking bits." Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 21:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the origin unclear?
The article currently states:
"The exact origin of the term is unclear, but it can be found in British, Dutch, and German sources of the 1960s and 1970s, and throughout the documentation of Philips mainframe computers."
Surely this is just the eighth member of the sequence which starts "monad", "dyad", "triad", ie a group of eight things (looking toward Greek). "Octet" and "octad" appear similar because the Latin and Greek cardinal number 8 both have the same form (octō, ὀκτώ). Compare e.g. "quintet" vs "pentad" for a group of 5.
Of course the correct term would be an ogdoad (from the genitive of the ordinal) but not everyone who wants to use precise, technical language also knows Greek.
If the question is about who first used the term in its computing sense, that may be unanswerable because it probably slipped in from an earlier technical or mathematical sense. – moogsi( blah) 23:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
oRLY?
Anybody having a programming experience—even amateur—knows that bytes more frequently do not represent numbers (serving as
opcodes, parts of bitmaps or compressed data…) than do represent numbers explicitly. Even for such complicated number format as
IEEE 754 it wouldn’t be helpful to think of every isolated byte as of a sensible numerical value. Objections against complete removal? If any, then change to “are capable of representing a binary number” maybe?
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
10:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this really correct? "100 gigabytes is specified when the disk contains 100 billion bytes (93 gibibytes) of storage space." The whole section has no attribution, so I can't check it. But I had always gathered that the difference was available storage space on formatted vs un-formatted disk. - Tsuchan ( talk) 12:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Is it absolutely necessary for kilobyte, kibibyte, megabyte, mibibyte, gigabyte, gibibyte, etc. to all have their own individual wikipedia pages that all say the exact same thing? Can't we put the information on one page, and have all those terms redirect to that one page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 ( talk) 10:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
excerpt}}
in case it's not being used already (I didn't check).
Feelthhis (
talk)
16:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
A week has passed since the merger and subsequent reversion, and several days have passed since the last contribution to this conversation. My takeaways are these:
{{
excerpt}}
might be able to help keep quality up in satellite articles.Unless it is felt that formal proposal is genuinely needed, I intend to re-implement the 13 supported redirects in the next day or so, to keep improving Byte, and to give further consideration to what form Kilobyte, Megabyte, and Gigabyte might take to best serve Wikipedia’s readers. — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 13:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I have redirected the articles for binary units, which contain none of the content being discussed yesterday. — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 14:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
References
@ KiridaSenpai: I just reverted (for the second time) the addition of a large amount of unreferenced material. Addition of new material is welcome if it is backed up by reliable sources. If you wish to reinstate this material, please read WP:BRD and then gain consensus for the change by discussing it here. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 10:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I’m hoping that someone with more technical knowledge than I possess could help source and/or calculate better practical examples for the table. I’ve tried to find published, understandable-to-the-layperson examples, but they are surprisingly hard to come by. Trying to make an example for ‘terabyte’ a few weeks ago, I looked up file sizes of H.264-encoded 1080p video, and a number of independent sources said 30 hours should be very close to 1 TB. Then I went searching for chunk of video 30 hours long (aiming for something that I had heard of despite having never seen), and I found Avatar: The Last Airbender. I see that Canucka has today calculated a substantially different file size for the same video data. I’m very glad that my amateur calculations are being scrutinized, and there are enough factors (encoding options, aspect ratio, compression of animation vs compression of live action, etc.) that I can believe that my best attempts may have been off by 200+%.
FWIW, I really like the introduction of the footnote, which allows the inclusion of a check-our-math explanation without burying the everybody-gets-it conclusion. This also helps us steer clear of WP:OR since the only original work is the basic math, which is fine as long as the inputs are verifiable. The newly revised table entry is too jargon-heavy, so it’d be good if the next example is something where we don’t feel compelled to mention the aspect ratio for instance. Cheers — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 20:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
PiB. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 20#PiB until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
10:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
IMHO the way I wrote it, the byte as information, is definitely much clearer when in the context of binary "digits" or flags (and corresponding hexadecimal digits). As it is written now you have many many words surrounding the concept and not touching it. So my edit is definitely in place. Please user:Dondervogel 2 next time discuss before deleting work that your fellow wikipedian put time and effort into.
Here is the deleted section:
Hexadecimal and binary representation: Byte values can be easily represented with hexadecimal digits. Since 4 set bits correspond to the hexadecimal digit F, every four-bit byte value is easily written as a single hexadecimal digit value, and the hexadecimal value of each digit can easily be translated back into its four bit binary value. Thus an 8 bit byte can be read as two 4 bit bytes, each represented by a single hexadecimal digit. So for example with an 8-bit byte, hexadecimal FF is the maximum value with all bits set (corresponding to decimal 255) and hexadecimal 10 is easily translated as binary 0001_0000 (corresponding to decimal 16).
I also added some short captions so that one can trudge through all the wording:
Byte size: The size of the byte has historically been ...
The 8 bit standard: The modern de facto standard of eight bits...
The unit symbol B: The unit symbol for the byte was designated as...
Thanks in Advance, Moshe aka פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 11:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hexadecimal and binary representation:doesn't discuss binary representation, so the head is misleading. Second, neither the head nor the text mention octal representation, which is both important historically and still, alas, in use for octets. Third, as Dondervogel mentioned, it doesn't belong in the lede. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 13:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead is:
This treats the byte as a unit of storage or information, and nothing else. However, use of the term normally relates to how the data is constructed, and in particular that it is a sequence of eight bits that are grouped together. (See Byte | Merriam-Webster.) For example, when we refer to a byte of computer memory, we usually specifically mean one of the 8-bit groupings of memory storage that are addressed together using a single byte address, not individual bits that might be scattered in arbitrary locations. I think it makes sense to put the emphasis on this meaning in this article, and to have the definition as a unit (measure of amount) of storage capacity as a derived meaning. — Quondum 16:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@
Tea2min, please see the relevant edit history [
/info/en/?search=Byte?action=history&offset=20220818072031&limit=4 ].
The reasons have been well explained I believe.
.
I believe what should be fixed are the templates, not the usage.
- MasterQuestionable ( talk) 17:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I would revert your edit (commit
1105047710) within hours, if there wasn't any objection with plausible reasoning:
For preparing my further edits (which is based on the old version).
- MasterQuestionable ( talk) 20:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Due to an implementation problem in MediaWiki, my further editing of the article is pending.
More details:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:X1hnma8u8r7amg4c
- MasterQuestionable ( talk) 01:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Line feeds are not allowed in refs: see
Category:CS1 errors: invisible characters. So several of the 'quote=' contain line feeds which generate the error. I fixed these but someone has unfixed them again. -
Oculi (
talk)
11:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
<br />
? If not, is the number small enough to do that manually? -
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
12:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)<br />
where breaks are to be kept? -
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
13:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)<br />
reduces readability. Feel free to change, I have no real preference. I needed to change the greying with italics because <span>...</span>
appears not to be compatible with {{
poem quote}}. -
User-duck (
talk)
13:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC) You seem to have missed the point entirely:
It's not really about whether the implementation complains about the line-breaks or not, but the existence of such line-breaks is reasonable and such usages are valid.
I thought about a workaround: having the "quote" content detached from the "Cite" templates; or dropping all the "Cite" templates wholesale. (I don't find these templates anyhow helpful really) - MasterQuestionable ( talk) 06:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
There's a problem with the lengthy quotes in the references. I don't know enough about our citation templates to fix this. - Tea2min ( talk) 07:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
|quote=
parameter and indicate any elided text with "{{
nbsp}}... ". --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
12:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC) The mentioned contents exist originally in the article's source (as XML comments).
I transformed them to use more appropriate formatting for better accessibility.
The context hints (weird characters you called) are intended to assist the text parsing.
Some of them must not be dropped else the content would become inaccessible in Plain Text.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=1105317022
This alone may not suffice as the reason to decide whether certain content is qualified for inclusion or not.
I believe the inclusion criteria should be entirely based on factual validity, besides nothing else.
- MasterQuestionable ( talk) 05:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Selectively not including contents of sufficient factual validity: the practice itself would be against the project's Neutrality guideline.
Probably this should be also forwarded to relevant guideline discussions.
[ Quote User-duck @ CE 2022-08-20 17:00:57 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=1105520727
I found this reference/source troubling and was actually glad to see the content removed because I do not know how to deal with the referencing. ]
<^> ? . There seems to be logic fault in the statement.
[ Quote (previous):
Also, I found the <&>tidbit</&> interesting but did not know if it really added to the article. ]
<^> The statement is ambiguous and needs clarification.
These revisions [
/info/en/?search=Byte?action=history&offset=20220819165028&limit=5 ] apparently resulted in degraded readability comparing to my last revision [
https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1105186269 ].
I'd suggest making more careful verifications (in cases of uncertainty, discuss first) before committing the change.
- MasterQuestionable ( talk) 06:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
|quote=
citation parameter, the greyed text is barely readable, and the extraneous "<&>", "< >", etc. markups do not help. I was very careful to make sure the content and intent of the quotes were maintained. I would appreciate any "Reckless" mistakes being corrected (or at least noted). The only reason I noticed this article is the CS1 errors. If the CS1 error messages had not been ignored (this is reckless) and the original quotes had been done outside the citation templates, I would not have noticed them.
[ Quote User-duck @ CE 2022-08-20 16:41:37 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=1105516677
The long quotes ... were incompatible with the "quote" citation parameter, ]
<^> The rationale had been explained in the previous discussion.
[ Quote (previous):
the greyed text is barely readable, ]
<^> This is intended. (they originally exist as XML comments; see previous discussion)
[ Quote (previous):
and the extraneous "<&>", "< >" ''[ It's "<.>". ]'', etc. markups do not help. ]
<^> This had also been explained before.
[ Quote (previous):
The long quotes were not formatted consistently, ]
<^> Besides the aforementioned, any more specific instance?
[ Quote (previous):
The only reason I noticed this article is the CS1 errors.
If the CS1 error messages had not been ignored (this is reckless) and the original quotes had been done outside the citation templates, I would not have noticed them. ]
<^> ...It gives a hunch that you didn't check the edit history (let alone relevant discussions) before carrying out the edit.
[ Quote (previous):
I was very careful to make sure the content and intent of the quotes were maintained.
I would appreciate any "Reckless" mistakes being corrected (or at least noted). ]
<^> Thanks for your effort anyway.
Though at a quick glance your revision [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1105316230#References ] does not look as good. (overall weird spacing caused by the template; and specifically reference #13, #18, #20, #22)
[ Quote (previous):
PS: I was hoping someone would notice the "Bare URL" and clarify the "... About bits and bytes: prefixes for binary multiples - IEC ..." reference. It does not meet my understanding of the Wikipedia standards for references. I could attempt to clarify it or simple tag it. ]
<^> The content of URI is significant and should not be meddled. (else it would cause accessibility issues)
[ Quote (previous):
I have longtime, extensive knowledge about computers. ]
<^> One with longtime, extensive knowledge on the subject missing so many details... The situation is concerning.
Using {{
poem quote}} presrves indentation, which is desirable, but it also preserves soft line breaks, which leads to jagged output and is not desirable. Is there a quote template that preserves indentation, allows wrapping and allows explicit <br />
tags? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
14:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
May be of use: [
|*| On the "1,000 or 1,024" affairs (Byte counting) # Background
|*|
https://github.com/exiftool/exiftool/issues/152#issue-1344954990 ]
- MasterQuestionable ( talk) 06:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
A standard date format should be established for this article. The predominate format is yyyy-mm-dd but this is not a preferred format. I saw one date using dmy. I would normally pick dmy or mdy, I have a slight preference for {{
use dmy dates|cs1-dates=ly}}
. But since the Talk page for this article is rather active, maybe a consensus could be obtained.
User-duck (
talk)
03:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like somebody had added a citation needed tag for a 122-minute album being too small to count as 1 GB.
Well, I did the math and it looks like 122 minutes is too long to count as 1 GB, if you think of it in terms of uncompressed CD-quality audio. CD quality is 16-bit stereo at 44100 samples a second, 1411200 bits/second, 84672000 bits/minute, or 10584000 bytes/minute.
So if you count how many minutes can fit in 1 GB at CD quality:
>>> (1000*1000*1000)/(16*2*44100*60/8) 94.48223733938019 >>> (1024*1024*1024)/(16*2*44100*60/8) 101.449529856387
The answer is 94 minutes 28.934240362811398 seconds for 1 GB, 101 minutes 26.97179138322 seconds for 1 GiB. -- Kjoon lee 09:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
It lists that all 61 episodes in 4:3 1080p is a way to think of 1 TB. The citation says that it equals 0.2925 TB. That means you could fit the episodes three times. I don’t know how to figure out the math, but helpful examples could be: X hours/minutes of 1080p@60 fps. x hours/minutes of 4K(2160p)@60 fps. Your Glutes ( talk) 06:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed that English wiki has only 3 pages about units if measurements (byte, megabyte and gigabyte). What about others? Кокушев Сергей ( talk) 05:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
2000 years of MP3 does not seem a great example (wouldn't it be better as 2 years for a TB). Could there be a better example for a PB? Robertm25 ( talk) 14:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Byte article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Nakanob.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
In the section titled "Unit Symbol" there is an entire paragraph explaining that the symbol 'B' is the SI unit of the bel. This is not true.
Although often used with SI prefixes - e.g. decibel(dB) - the bel itself is not, nor can it ever be an SI unit itself, it is a dimensionless ratio. Because it is dimensionless, it is often necessary to indicate how it was calculated by adding an appropriate suffix (e.g. dBi, dBm) in order to make meaningful comparisons.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/outside.html
JNBBoytjie ( talk) 10:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
AFAICS 'unsigned char' is right. Based on the C Standard, (signed) char need only hold values between -127 and 127 inclusive, in other words only 255 distinct values. If you want a guarantee of 256 distinct values you need unsigned char. Ewx ( talk) 08:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
For the record, this is the text of 6.2.5#3:
Kbrose ( talk) 11:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Octet (computing) should be merged into Byte as Octlet (computing) is another name for Byte and Wikipedia does not have two articles for two names of the same thing (instead both are mentioned in the WP:LEAD and the article's title is at the WP:COMMONNAME). - KAP03( Talk • Contributions • Email) 22:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Off the tope of my head, these machines come to mind as supporting byte sizes other than 8
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 18:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The IBM 7030, for which the term byte was coined, did not include error checking bits as part of a byte. Nor did the DEC PDP-6, the CDC 3600, or any of the other computers with the ability to access bytes of various size. The System/360 Principles of Operation contains the text "Within certain units of the system, a bit-correction capability is provided by either appending additional check bits to a group of bytes or by converting the check bits of a group of bytes into an arrangement which provides for error checking and correction (ECC). The group of bytes associated with a single ECC code is called an ECC block. The number of bytes in an ECC block, and the manner in which the conversion or appending is accomplished depend on the type of unit involved and may vary among models." Accordingly, I call for the reinstatement of the text "The byte size designates only the data coding and excludes any parity or other error checking bits." Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 21:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the origin unclear?
The article currently states:
"The exact origin of the term is unclear, but it can be found in British, Dutch, and German sources of the 1960s and 1970s, and throughout the documentation of Philips mainframe computers."
Surely this is just the eighth member of the sequence which starts "monad", "dyad", "triad", ie a group of eight things (looking toward Greek). "Octet" and "octad" appear similar because the Latin and Greek cardinal number 8 both have the same form (octō, ὀκτώ). Compare e.g. "quintet" vs "pentad" for a group of 5.
Of course the correct term would be an ogdoad (from the genitive of the ordinal) but not everyone who wants to use precise, technical language also knows Greek.
If the question is about who first used the term in its computing sense, that may be unanswerable because it probably slipped in from an earlier technical or mathematical sense. – moogsi( blah) 23:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
oRLY?
Anybody having a programming experience—even amateur—knows that bytes more frequently do not represent numbers (serving as
opcodes, parts of bitmaps or compressed data…) than do represent numbers explicitly. Even for such complicated number format as
IEEE 754 it wouldn’t be helpful to think of every isolated byte as of a sensible numerical value. Objections against complete removal? If any, then change to “are capable of representing a binary number” maybe?
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
10:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this really correct? "100 gigabytes is specified when the disk contains 100 billion bytes (93 gibibytes) of storage space." The whole section has no attribution, so I can't check it. But I had always gathered that the difference was available storage space on formatted vs un-formatted disk. - Tsuchan ( talk) 12:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Is it absolutely necessary for kilobyte, kibibyte, megabyte, mibibyte, gigabyte, gibibyte, etc. to all have their own individual wikipedia pages that all say the exact same thing? Can't we put the information on one page, and have all those terms redirect to that one page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 ( talk) 10:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
excerpt}}
in case it's not being used already (I didn't check).
Feelthhis (
talk)
16:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
A week has passed since the merger and subsequent reversion, and several days have passed since the last contribution to this conversation. My takeaways are these:
{{
excerpt}}
might be able to help keep quality up in satellite articles.Unless it is felt that formal proposal is genuinely needed, I intend to re-implement the 13 supported redirects in the next day or so, to keep improving Byte, and to give further consideration to what form Kilobyte, Megabyte, and Gigabyte might take to best serve Wikipedia’s readers. — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 13:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I have redirected the articles for binary units, which contain none of the content being discussed yesterday. — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 14:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
References
@ KiridaSenpai: I just reverted (for the second time) the addition of a large amount of unreferenced material. Addition of new material is welcome if it is backed up by reliable sources. If you wish to reinstate this material, please read WP:BRD and then gain consensus for the change by discussing it here. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 10:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I’m hoping that someone with more technical knowledge than I possess could help source and/or calculate better practical examples for the table. I’ve tried to find published, understandable-to-the-layperson examples, but they are surprisingly hard to come by. Trying to make an example for ‘terabyte’ a few weeks ago, I looked up file sizes of H.264-encoded 1080p video, and a number of independent sources said 30 hours should be very close to 1 TB. Then I went searching for chunk of video 30 hours long (aiming for something that I had heard of despite having never seen), and I found Avatar: The Last Airbender. I see that Canucka has today calculated a substantially different file size for the same video data. I’m very glad that my amateur calculations are being scrutinized, and there are enough factors (encoding options, aspect ratio, compression of animation vs compression of live action, etc.) that I can believe that my best attempts may have been off by 200+%.
FWIW, I really like the introduction of the footnote, which allows the inclusion of a check-our-math explanation without burying the everybody-gets-it conclusion. This also helps us steer clear of WP:OR since the only original work is the basic math, which is fine as long as the inputs are verifiable. The newly revised table entry is too jargon-heavy, so it’d be good if the next example is something where we don’t feel compelled to mention the aspect ratio for instance. Cheers — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 20:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
PiB. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 20#PiB until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
10:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
IMHO the way I wrote it, the byte as information, is definitely much clearer when in the context of binary "digits" or flags (and corresponding hexadecimal digits). As it is written now you have many many words surrounding the concept and not touching it. So my edit is definitely in place. Please user:Dondervogel 2 next time discuss before deleting work that your fellow wikipedian put time and effort into.
Here is the deleted section:
Hexadecimal and binary representation: Byte values can be easily represented with hexadecimal digits. Since 4 set bits correspond to the hexadecimal digit F, every four-bit byte value is easily written as a single hexadecimal digit value, and the hexadecimal value of each digit can easily be translated back into its four bit binary value. Thus an 8 bit byte can be read as two 4 bit bytes, each represented by a single hexadecimal digit. So for example with an 8-bit byte, hexadecimal FF is the maximum value with all bits set (corresponding to decimal 255) and hexadecimal 10 is easily translated as binary 0001_0000 (corresponding to decimal 16).
I also added some short captions so that one can trudge through all the wording:
Byte size: The size of the byte has historically been ...
The 8 bit standard: The modern de facto standard of eight bits...
The unit symbol B: The unit symbol for the byte was designated as...
Thanks in Advance, Moshe aka פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 11:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hexadecimal and binary representation:doesn't discuss binary representation, so the head is misleading. Second, neither the head nor the text mention octal representation, which is both important historically and still, alas, in use for octets. Third, as Dondervogel mentioned, it doesn't belong in the lede. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 13:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead is:
This treats the byte as a unit of storage or information, and nothing else. However, use of the term normally relates to how the data is constructed, and in particular that it is a sequence of eight bits that are grouped together. (See Byte | Merriam-Webster.) For example, when we refer to a byte of computer memory, we usually specifically mean one of the 8-bit groupings of memory storage that are addressed together using a single byte address, not individual bits that might be scattered in arbitrary locations. I think it makes sense to put the emphasis on this meaning in this article, and to have the definition as a unit (measure of amount) of storage capacity as a derived meaning. — Quondum 16:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@
Tea2min, please see the relevant edit history [
/info/en/?search=Byte?action=history&offset=20220818072031&limit=4 ].
The reasons have been well explained I believe.
.
I believe what should be fixed are the templates, not the usage.
- MasterQuestionable ( talk) 17:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I would revert your edit (commit
1105047710) within hours, if there wasn't any objection with plausible reasoning:
For preparing my further edits (which is based on the old version).
- MasterQuestionable ( talk) 20:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Due to an implementation problem in MediaWiki, my further editing of the article is pending.
More details:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:X1hnma8u8r7amg4c
- MasterQuestionable ( talk) 01:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Line feeds are not allowed in refs: see
Category:CS1 errors: invisible characters. So several of the 'quote=' contain line feeds which generate the error. I fixed these but someone has unfixed them again. -
Oculi (
talk)
11:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
<br />
? If not, is the number small enough to do that manually? -
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
12:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)<br />
where breaks are to be kept? -
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
13:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)<br />
reduces readability. Feel free to change, I have no real preference. I needed to change the greying with italics because <span>...</span>
appears not to be compatible with {{
poem quote}}. -
User-duck (
talk)
13:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC) You seem to have missed the point entirely:
It's not really about whether the implementation complains about the line-breaks or not, but the existence of such line-breaks is reasonable and such usages are valid.
I thought about a workaround: having the "quote" content detached from the "Cite" templates; or dropping all the "Cite" templates wholesale. (I don't find these templates anyhow helpful really) - MasterQuestionable ( talk) 06:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
There's a problem with the lengthy quotes in the references. I don't know enough about our citation templates to fix this. - Tea2min ( talk) 07:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
|quote=
parameter and indicate any elided text with "{{
nbsp}}... ". --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
12:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC) The mentioned contents exist originally in the article's source (as XML comments).
I transformed them to use more appropriate formatting for better accessibility.
The context hints (weird characters you called) are intended to assist the text parsing.
Some of them must not be dropped else the content would become inaccessible in Plain Text.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=1105317022
This alone may not suffice as the reason to decide whether certain content is qualified for inclusion or not.
I believe the inclusion criteria should be entirely based on factual validity, besides nothing else.
- MasterQuestionable ( talk) 05:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Selectively not including contents of sufficient factual validity: the practice itself would be against the project's Neutrality guideline.
Probably this should be also forwarded to relevant guideline discussions.
[ Quote User-duck @ CE 2022-08-20 17:00:57 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=1105520727
I found this reference/source troubling and was actually glad to see the content removed because I do not know how to deal with the referencing. ]
<^> ? . There seems to be logic fault in the statement.
[ Quote (previous):
Also, I found the <&>tidbit</&> interesting but did not know if it really added to the article. ]
<^> The statement is ambiguous and needs clarification.
These revisions [
/info/en/?search=Byte?action=history&offset=20220819165028&limit=5 ] apparently resulted in degraded readability comparing to my last revision [
https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1105186269 ].
I'd suggest making more careful verifications (in cases of uncertainty, discuss first) before committing the change.
- MasterQuestionable ( talk) 06:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
|quote=
citation parameter, the greyed text is barely readable, and the extraneous "<&>", "< >", etc. markups do not help. I was very careful to make sure the content and intent of the quotes were maintained. I would appreciate any "Reckless" mistakes being corrected (or at least noted). The only reason I noticed this article is the CS1 errors. If the CS1 error messages had not been ignored (this is reckless) and the original quotes had been done outside the citation templates, I would not have noticed them.
[ Quote User-duck @ CE 2022-08-20 16:41:37 UTC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diffonly=1&diff=prev&oldid=1105516677
The long quotes ... were incompatible with the "quote" citation parameter, ]
<^> The rationale had been explained in the previous discussion.
[ Quote (previous):
the greyed text is barely readable, ]
<^> This is intended. (they originally exist as XML comments; see previous discussion)
[ Quote (previous):
and the extraneous "<&>", "< >" ''[ It's "<.>". ]'', etc. markups do not help. ]
<^> This had also been explained before.
[ Quote (previous):
The long quotes were not formatted consistently, ]
<^> Besides the aforementioned, any more specific instance?
[ Quote (previous):
The only reason I noticed this article is the CS1 errors.
If the CS1 error messages had not been ignored (this is reckless) and the original quotes had been done outside the citation templates, I would not have noticed them. ]
<^> ...It gives a hunch that you didn't check the edit history (let alone relevant discussions) before carrying out the edit.
[ Quote (previous):
I was very careful to make sure the content and intent of the quotes were maintained.
I would appreciate any "Reckless" mistakes being corrected (or at least noted). ]
<^> Thanks for your effort anyway.
Though at a quick glance your revision [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1105316230#References ] does not look as good. (overall weird spacing caused by the template; and specifically reference #13, #18, #20, #22)
[ Quote (previous):
PS: I was hoping someone would notice the "Bare URL" and clarify the "... About bits and bytes: prefixes for binary multiples - IEC ..." reference. It does not meet my understanding of the Wikipedia standards for references. I could attempt to clarify it or simple tag it. ]
<^> The content of URI is significant and should not be meddled. (else it would cause accessibility issues)
[ Quote (previous):
I have longtime, extensive knowledge about computers. ]
<^> One with longtime, extensive knowledge on the subject missing so many details... The situation is concerning.
Using {{
poem quote}} presrves indentation, which is desirable, but it also preserves soft line breaks, which leads to jagged output and is not desirable. Is there a quote template that preserves indentation, allows wrapping and allows explicit <br />
tags? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
14:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
May be of use: [
|*| On the "1,000 or 1,024" affairs (Byte counting) # Background
|*|
https://github.com/exiftool/exiftool/issues/152#issue-1344954990 ]
- MasterQuestionable ( talk) 06:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
A standard date format should be established for this article. The predominate format is yyyy-mm-dd but this is not a preferred format. I saw one date using dmy. I would normally pick dmy or mdy, I have a slight preference for {{
use dmy dates|cs1-dates=ly}}
. But since the Talk page for this article is rather active, maybe a consensus could be obtained.
User-duck (
talk)
03:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like somebody had added a citation needed tag for a 122-minute album being too small to count as 1 GB.
Well, I did the math and it looks like 122 minutes is too long to count as 1 GB, if you think of it in terms of uncompressed CD-quality audio. CD quality is 16-bit stereo at 44100 samples a second, 1411200 bits/second, 84672000 bits/minute, or 10584000 bytes/minute.
So if you count how many minutes can fit in 1 GB at CD quality:
>>> (1000*1000*1000)/(16*2*44100*60/8) 94.48223733938019 >>> (1024*1024*1024)/(16*2*44100*60/8) 101.449529856387
The answer is 94 minutes 28.934240362811398 seconds for 1 GB, 101 minutes 26.97179138322 seconds for 1 GiB. -- Kjoon lee 09:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
It lists that all 61 episodes in 4:3 1080p is a way to think of 1 TB. The citation says that it equals 0.2925 TB. That means you could fit the episodes three times. I don’t know how to figure out the math, but helpful examples could be: X hours/minutes of 1080p@60 fps. x hours/minutes of 4K(2160p)@60 fps. Your Glutes ( talk) 06:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed that English wiki has only 3 pages about units if measurements (byte, megabyte and gigabyte). What about others? Кокушев Сергей ( talk) 05:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
2000 years of MP3 does not seem a great example (wouldn't it be better as 2 years for a TB). Could there be a better example for a PB? Robertm25 ( talk) 14:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)