This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
While there is arguably a super-article, Disk Storage of which hard disk drives could be a subordinate article, this article is almost entirely about HDDs. For example, the recently added section Disk_storage#Standard_Disk_Sizes applies only to HDDs. Accordingly, I propose we should merge all HDD material from this article into Hard_Disk_Drive and if nothing is left delete this article (or leave a stub). Tom94022 ( talk) 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Snake ( talk) 13:09, 15 April 2010 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.94.254 ( talk)
This is going too far now. Disk storage is NOT just about computers...Tom you really need to consult and gain consensus before going so far demolishing an article Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The more I look at this article, the more I conclude we should nuke Sections 2 thru 6 and replace them with a single Section, Types of disk storage. The section in turn would list the major categories by with disc storage is subdivided, perhaps a short description and then a link to the appropriate article#section. At this point I can think of the following categories:
Category | Types |
---|---|
Medium: | Rigid Magnetic, Flexible Magnetic or Rigid Magnetic are the primary disk storage media. |
Access method: | File system for computer storage, or ??? for audio and video. |
Rotation: | Typically Constant linear velocity for magnetic disk storage and Constant angular velocity for optical storage. |
Size: | Early disk storage devices, e.g. Early IBM disk storage, were separate cabinets but over time the sizes have evolved into standard Form Factors. |
Mechanism: | Early magnetic disk storage devices used Linear actuators; however, beginning 1975 magnetic storage devices began using rotary actuators [1] such that they are universal today. In a rotary actuator the heads move across the disk in an arc that approximates a radius. Optical disk storage devices use both Linear actuators and rotary actuators. |
etc. | TBD |
I don't this list has to be exhaustive, just those key categories that significantly segment the market. For example, I did not include a category for Recording Method which would go into the distinction in disk storage between Analog recording and Digital recording because it seems like TMI. Note that in most cases I was able to link to an article so I didn't have to say much. In the case of "rotary actuator" where there is no article I put in a brief description. The idea is to keep this article short since so much of it is elsewhere. Comments?
Tom94022 ( talk) 21:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no material violating copyrights remains in here. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 12:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Information about fixed-head disk storage has apparently been removed from this disk storage article.
Is there some other article about fixed-head disks? Such fixed-head devices are alluded to in many Wikipedia articles -- paging, IBM System/360, 1ESS switch, OS/8, D-37C, Burroughs B2500, Autonetics Recomp II, etc. -- with a variety of names -- "fixed-head disk", "head-per-track disk drive", "head-per-track disk system", and probably other names as well.
In my opinion, it is misleading for "disk storage" in the above articles to link to this article -- which talks only about moving-head disk storage -- when those articles are actually referring to fixed-head disk storage.
Is there even a small section of some other article that discusses fixed-head disk storage, so I could point those links at something less misleading?
(Fixed-head storage has long been obsolete, but WP:RECENTISM and WP:DEFUNCTS imply that obsolescence alone is no reason not to have an article -- hence our articles on LaserDisc, IBM 305 RAMAC, disk pack, phonograph cylinder, etc.). -- DavidCary ( talk) 02:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Some recent edits and reverts have been over whether we say "data are" or "data is", that is, whether "data" is the plural of "datum" (therefore "the data are", similar to "the trees are") or an uncountable noun (therefore "the data is", similar to "the forest is").
From what I've seen, those more aware of the original Latin root, such as some of those in hard sciences, may use "data are", but the majority, like the computer and storage industry, never use "datum" and say "data is".
Wikt:Data states This word is more often used as an uncountable noun...
.
Our own
Data article starts with Data (/ˈdeɪtə/ DAY-tə, /ˈdætə/ DA-tə, or /ˈdɑːtə/ DAH-tə)[1] is...
and in non-specialist, everyday writing, "data" is most commonly used in the singular, as a mass noun (like "information", "sand" or "rain").[5]
. (This has a ref, though hardly the most authoritative one.)
My !vote:
Okay, so it's agreed that "data are" is not an improvement over "data is". It took a while to get to that.
Additionally, we also agree that both "data are" and "data is" are valid English; no one's suggested otherwise. We also agree that we should be consistent within the article; no one's suggested otherwise. It's kind of pointless to keep repeating these.
So far, so good.
Before I go on, I have a minor point of procedure about the "two rules": MOS:ARTCON and MOS:RETAIN. To help this discussion, I'm reducing this to just RETAIN, since what ARTCON states is an agreed given, and doesn't affect this issue either way; as just noted, no one's trying to mix the datas up, regardless of repeating ARTCON or not.
Now, something we don't fully agree on: applying RETAIN here. To me, it seems quite a stretch, since it's under the section " National varieties of English", and "data are" isn't a national variety -- American, British, and other English nations (AFAIK), use both. Just as someone favoring "BC" over "BCE" shouldn't use ENGVAR as justification, this issue shouldn't either.
But, I actually don't think it much matters if it applies or not, because if RETAIN applies, so would MOS:TIES -- in the same MOS:ENGVAR section, right above it. Since the rules aren't rules, I'm skeptical of spending a lot of focus on this only to have it later dismissed as irrelevant WP:GAMING. What I want is to get beyond personal opinions and get to actually providing valid WP evidence -- sources. If this helps get there, okay.
So, before going further, do we agree on using both RETAIN and TIES (or neither)? -- A D Monroe III( talk) 19:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
At this point there is no consensus and I am not wasting my time responding to you. Tom94022 ( talk) 05:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this article, should "data" be used as a count noun (the plural of "datum") or mass noun (like "information")? This affects its grammatical use in many sentences; examples: "the data are stored" vs. "the data is stored", and "SSDs hold fewer data" vs. "SSDs hold less data".
Note that this RfC is not for all WP articles, but for this Disk storage article (though any consensus here might be applied to some other closely related articles, such as Hard disk drive, Data storage, or Computer, following discussion in those articles). -- A D Monroe III( talk) 16:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Data are or Data is?
In this article, should "data" be used as a count noun (the plural of "datum") or mass noun (like "information")?I'm sorry if my is/are simplification just for !voting somehow overrides the RfC statement as written. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 23:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
First, it's agreed that both "data are" and "data is" are currently used in English, so neither is "incorrect" (similar to "disc" vs. "disk"). Also note that this article currently uses "data are".
It can be noted that "data is" is the more favored use in modern dictionaries and in general English, but it's more important to note that these two uses are far from equally distributed.
The etymological origin of "data" is Latin, where it was the plural of the Latin "datum". This tends to be maintained in fields where knowledge of Latin is more common, like "hard" science and research where publishing in scientific journals is the goal. Here, using the word "datum" occurs, and "data" tends to be maintained as countable and the plural of "datum".
But outside of this, English use is otherwise. In newer "engineering" fields, where the the only end-target is products for common consumers, "data is" dominates: industry sources, consumer articles, and user manuals. Here, "data" a mass noun, used just like "information", and "datum" is virtually absent.
Thus the common reader for this subject will be used to, and expecting, "data is". When reading the article and coming across "data are", this can cause the reader to stop and wonder why our WP editor would choose that; is there some implied significance to this they've missed? It's an interruption, just like coming across "colour" in an article about an American film, or "BC" in an article on Judaism, or "phone it in" within an article about Shakespeare. Unusual wording just distracts the reader, with no benefit whatsoever. Since "data are" and "data is" are unequally correct English, we should simply go with the one more appropriate for the reader. In a few articles this choice may be difficult -- not here. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 16:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Data can take either a singular or plural verb in standard English, but be consistent within a piece of writing, always check the style policy of your organization, and make yourself familiar with the grammatical debate that exists around them.
Oxford Dictionaries Blog
There's something that may be of interest here: a user essay called the " Yogurt Principle". It covers the long sad story of the 8 year ugly battle to move Yoghurt to Yogurt, which ended only when the move finally succeeded. The "principle" it proposes is to suggest asking the question, "if a proposed change were done, would anyone later bother to try and change it back"? It could be asked here: if this article was changed to "data is", would there be any more drive-by edits to change it back to "data are"? I really doubt it. Changing can end the current drive-by edits (see article edit history), and all further discussion. The only arguments for "data are" here are based on "let's just keep it the way it is". If changed, those same arguments would then join the consensus for "data is", making it overwhelming and permanent. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 20:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
(I have moved the following from MOS Talk as more appropriate here. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 01:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC))
With counting of "data is" vs "data are" being presented as evidence for some WP preference, I should point out that's not evidence for any preference of data as a plural of datum vs. data as a mass noun. In phrases like "different types of data are used", the subject is "types", not "data", so "are" is used regardless of data being a mass noun. There are many other indicators of count vs. mass, such as "fewer data" vs. "less data". English being what it is, the varieties pertinent variations on this are virtually endless. A better indicator (though still not perfect) would be counting the occurrence of "data" vs. "datum" in articles; in general, any article that uses "data" as a plural is at least somewhat likely to use its singular form as well, while articles using it as a mass noun are very unlikely to use "datum". -- A D Monroe III( talk) 15:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
... editors should not change an article from one styling to another without "substantial reason"
WP Manual of style
Nothing to do with ENGVAR
|
---|
While MOS:ENGVAR clearly applies to inter-language variations of English language we can consider its teachings in the context of this intra-American English language variation. Specifically:
Monroe agrees that both varients are used in American English thereby admitting there are no "strong national ties" so that if we apply the teachings of MOS:ENGVAR we will not change the article. Tom94022 ( talk) 19:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR has nothing to do with this discussion at all, not does it's parts. It is solely about differences between dialects in different countries, such as the differences between British and American English. It is totally irrelevant here and a red herring. oknazevad ( talk) 15:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
|
Several have asserted that "data" as in this Disk Storage article is a mass noun usage and therefore the article should use "data is." Disk storage is almost always enumerated in bytes which would justify the plural noun "data are" useage herein. The Access Methods section contains some enumeration information; it could be improved making the capacity ranges of the various disk storage media more clear and further supporting the plural noun useage. Tom94022 ( talk) 06:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
MOS suggests this is a style retention issue
|
---|
(Edited from MOS) There seem to be at least four sets of opinons:
At least three of the four groups are represented above and it looks like no consensus will be reached here. Furthermore, it is an often repeated problem; a search of article talk pages turns up 1,022 instances of both varients. An analysis of the first 500 hits (about half) shows 288 articles discussing this issue in 2017 with hits going back to 2005 - here is the the detailed analysis. So "this dispute is recurrent and flamey enough that MoS should say something specific about it." It really doesn't matter if MoS addresses the more general issue of varients within a language (more or less along the lines of MOS:ENGVAR) or just this issue - my recommendations specifically for "data" are:
While this discussion attempts to limit itself to this article and closely related articles my research clearly shows this is enough of an repeated historical problem that it should be addressed in MOS. Tom94022 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
|
Per the RfC statement, this RfC asks:
In this article, should "data" be used as a count noun (the plural of "datum") or mass noun (like "information")? This affects its grammatical use in many sentences; examples: "the data are stored" vs. "the data is stored", and "SSDs hold fewer data" vs. "SSDs hold less data".
The #Survey starts with suggestions for !voting:
Data are or Data is?
The suggested shorthand for voting was in no way meant to override the RfC as written. "Data are" !votes mean "'Data' is grammatically the plural of 'datum' in this article" and "Data is" !votes mean "'Data' is grammatically a mass noun in this article". Standard English grammar and WP guidelines would still apply, regardless of the text of the shorthand !voting. As per the RfC as written, a !vote for either "data is" or "data are"
affects its grammatical use
(emphasis added); it will not blindly replace all instances of "data is" or "data are" with the shorthand !vote, overriding correct English grammar, and WP rules for not changing quotes, etc.
Specifically, "pieces of data are" would remain unchanged in this RfC, as "pieces of data" is a plural noun phrase, regardless of whether data is a mass noun or count noun, and plural noun phrases use "are". -- A D Monroe III( talk) 00:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not an English variety issue coverred by MOS:RETAIN; it is a style retention issue
|
---|
Per
MOS:RETAIN,
Following RETAIN requires that we go with "data is". Oh, and once again, the whole article is part of Data storage (mass), not Datum storage (count). So even if the article was ever made consistent with "data are", per RETAIN, the article should be changed to reflect its fundamental ties with data as a mass noun. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 15:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC) |
My bad. I meant MOS:STYLERET, not MOS:RETAIN. Sorry. Let's try this again at #MOS:STYLERET, just below. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 17:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Per
MOS:STYLERET, editors should not change an article from one styling to another without "substantial reason"
size of data to be stored(data as mass) instead of number of data to be stored or size of datum to be stored (data as count noun)
controlling the data transfer(mass) instead of controlling the datum transfer (count)
user data bits are transferred(mass); there's no grammatical way to have two plurals in a row here -- it would be like saying trees leaves, the first noun has to be singular or a mass noun to make a noun phrase.
"gross" data transfer rate(mass) instead of "gross" datum transfer rate. (count)
Following #MOS:STYLERET requires that we go with "data is".
Oh, and once again, the whole article is part of
Data storage (mass), not
Datum storage (count). So even if the article was ever made consistent with "data are", per MOS:STYLERET "substantial reason"
, the article should be changed to reflect its fundamental ties with data as a mass noun. --
A D Monroe III(
talk)
17:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of consensus this discussion should be closed without changing the article.
An opinion at MOS on this specific subject is that this discussion falls under Retaining Existing Styles which states, "... editors should not change an article from one styling to another without "substantial reason" " I agree.
There are about 30,000 WP articles that use one form or the other of data are/data is. In these articles WP editors use "data are" over "data is" by a ratio greater than 4/3 so that actual style used by actual WP editors demonstrates there there is no "substantial reason" for a change. The best unsubstantial reason raised above is that "data is" is "more common" in general works. It is not relevant in WP where editors prefer "data are;" making WP more of a technical publication where "data are" is more common. Either is acceptable.
I would note that this has been a very stable article and I am the only editor participating in this discussion who contributed to the article. It is one of about 17,000 WP articles exclusively using "data are." So I ask why put all this effort into imposing a rule in this one article and oppose taking it to MOS? There is nothing about its usage herein that is any different than its usage in the other 17,000 article! If this is not a question of retaining an existing style then shouldn't it be discussed at MOS? If it is a retention question then the discussion should be closed with the article unchanged. Tom94022 ( talk) 18:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: The closure of this RfC was reviewed and endorsed; see Request review of closure at Disk storage. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 21:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, College of Engineering, Pune, India supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not mentioned in the article that these days, 'disk storage' is also used to refer to any kind of non-volatile memory to distinguish it from volatile memory (RAM). Like for example the non-volatile flash memory of a smartphone is often dubbed 'disk storage', in spite of not being a physical rotating disk at all. MFX ( talk) 07:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
While there is arguably a super-article, Disk Storage of which hard disk drives could be a subordinate article, this article is almost entirely about HDDs. For example, the recently added section Disk_storage#Standard_Disk_Sizes applies only to HDDs. Accordingly, I propose we should merge all HDD material from this article into Hard_Disk_Drive and if nothing is left delete this article (or leave a stub). Tom94022 ( talk) 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Snake ( talk) 13:09, 15 April 2010 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.94.254 ( talk)
This is going too far now. Disk storage is NOT just about computers...Tom you really need to consult and gain consensus before going so far demolishing an article Chaosdruid ( talk) 02:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The more I look at this article, the more I conclude we should nuke Sections 2 thru 6 and replace them with a single Section, Types of disk storage. The section in turn would list the major categories by with disc storage is subdivided, perhaps a short description and then a link to the appropriate article#section. At this point I can think of the following categories:
Category | Types |
---|---|
Medium: | Rigid Magnetic, Flexible Magnetic or Rigid Magnetic are the primary disk storage media. |
Access method: | File system for computer storage, or ??? for audio and video. |
Rotation: | Typically Constant linear velocity for magnetic disk storage and Constant angular velocity for optical storage. |
Size: | Early disk storage devices, e.g. Early IBM disk storage, were separate cabinets but over time the sizes have evolved into standard Form Factors. |
Mechanism: | Early magnetic disk storage devices used Linear actuators; however, beginning 1975 magnetic storage devices began using rotary actuators [1] such that they are universal today. In a rotary actuator the heads move across the disk in an arc that approximates a radius. Optical disk storage devices use both Linear actuators and rotary actuators. |
etc. | TBD |
I don't this list has to be exhaustive, just those key categories that significantly segment the market. For example, I did not include a category for Recording Method which would go into the distinction in disk storage between Analog recording and Digital recording because it seems like TMI. Note that in most cases I was able to link to an article so I didn't have to say much. In the case of "rotary actuator" where there is no article I put in a brief description. The idea is to keep this article short since so much of it is elsewhere. Comments?
Tom94022 ( talk) 21:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no material violating copyrights remains in here. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 12:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Information about fixed-head disk storage has apparently been removed from this disk storage article.
Is there some other article about fixed-head disks? Such fixed-head devices are alluded to in many Wikipedia articles -- paging, IBM System/360, 1ESS switch, OS/8, D-37C, Burroughs B2500, Autonetics Recomp II, etc. -- with a variety of names -- "fixed-head disk", "head-per-track disk drive", "head-per-track disk system", and probably other names as well.
In my opinion, it is misleading for "disk storage" in the above articles to link to this article -- which talks only about moving-head disk storage -- when those articles are actually referring to fixed-head disk storage.
Is there even a small section of some other article that discusses fixed-head disk storage, so I could point those links at something less misleading?
(Fixed-head storage has long been obsolete, but WP:RECENTISM and WP:DEFUNCTS imply that obsolescence alone is no reason not to have an article -- hence our articles on LaserDisc, IBM 305 RAMAC, disk pack, phonograph cylinder, etc.). -- DavidCary ( talk) 02:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Some recent edits and reverts have been over whether we say "data are" or "data is", that is, whether "data" is the plural of "datum" (therefore "the data are", similar to "the trees are") or an uncountable noun (therefore "the data is", similar to "the forest is").
From what I've seen, those more aware of the original Latin root, such as some of those in hard sciences, may use "data are", but the majority, like the computer and storage industry, never use "datum" and say "data is".
Wikt:Data states This word is more often used as an uncountable noun...
.
Our own
Data article starts with Data (/ˈdeɪtə/ DAY-tə, /ˈdætə/ DA-tə, or /ˈdɑːtə/ DAH-tə)[1] is...
and in non-specialist, everyday writing, "data" is most commonly used in the singular, as a mass noun (like "information", "sand" or "rain").[5]
. (This has a ref, though hardly the most authoritative one.)
My !vote:
Okay, so it's agreed that "data are" is not an improvement over "data is". It took a while to get to that.
Additionally, we also agree that both "data are" and "data is" are valid English; no one's suggested otherwise. We also agree that we should be consistent within the article; no one's suggested otherwise. It's kind of pointless to keep repeating these.
So far, so good.
Before I go on, I have a minor point of procedure about the "two rules": MOS:ARTCON and MOS:RETAIN. To help this discussion, I'm reducing this to just RETAIN, since what ARTCON states is an agreed given, and doesn't affect this issue either way; as just noted, no one's trying to mix the datas up, regardless of repeating ARTCON or not.
Now, something we don't fully agree on: applying RETAIN here. To me, it seems quite a stretch, since it's under the section " National varieties of English", and "data are" isn't a national variety -- American, British, and other English nations (AFAIK), use both. Just as someone favoring "BC" over "BCE" shouldn't use ENGVAR as justification, this issue shouldn't either.
But, I actually don't think it much matters if it applies or not, because if RETAIN applies, so would MOS:TIES -- in the same MOS:ENGVAR section, right above it. Since the rules aren't rules, I'm skeptical of spending a lot of focus on this only to have it later dismissed as irrelevant WP:GAMING. What I want is to get beyond personal opinions and get to actually providing valid WP evidence -- sources. If this helps get there, okay.
So, before going further, do we agree on using both RETAIN and TIES (or neither)? -- A D Monroe III( talk) 19:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
At this point there is no consensus and I am not wasting my time responding to you. Tom94022 ( talk) 05:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this article, should "data" be used as a count noun (the plural of "datum") or mass noun (like "information")? This affects its grammatical use in many sentences; examples: "the data are stored" vs. "the data is stored", and "SSDs hold fewer data" vs. "SSDs hold less data".
Note that this RfC is not for all WP articles, but for this Disk storage article (though any consensus here might be applied to some other closely related articles, such as Hard disk drive, Data storage, or Computer, following discussion in those articles). -- A D Monroe III( talk) 16:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Data are or Data is?
In this article, should "data" be used as a count noun (the plural of "datum") or mass noun (like "information")?I'm sorry if my is/are simplification just for !voting somehow overrides the RfC statement as written. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 23:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
First, it's agreed that both "data are" and "data is" are currently used in English, so neither is "incorrect" (similar to "disc" vs. "disk"). Also note that this article currently uses "data are".
It can be noted that "data is" is the more favored use in modern dictionaries and in general English, but it's more important to note that these two uses are far from equally distributed.
The etymological origin of "data" is Latin, where it was the plural of the Latin "datum". This tends to be maintained in fields where knowledge of Latin is more common, like "hard" science and research where publishing in scientific journals is the goal. Here, using the word "datum" occurs, and "data" tends to be maintained as countable and the plural of "datum".
But outside of this, English use is otherwise. In newer "engineering" fields, where the the only end-target is products for common consumers, "data is" dominates: industry sources, consumer articles, and user manuals. Here, "data" a mass noun, used just like "information", and "datum" is virtually absent.
Thus the common reader for this subject will be used to, and expecting, "data is". When reading the article and coming across "data are", this can cause the reader to stop and wonder why our WP editor would choose that; is there some implied significance to this they've missed? It's an interruption, just like coming across "colour" in an article about an American film, or "BC" in an article on Judaism, or "phone it in" within an article about Shakespeare. Unusual wording just distracts the reader, with no benefit whatsoever. Since "data are" and "data is" are unequally correct English, we should simply go with the one more appropriate for the reader. In a few articles this choice may be difficult -- not here. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 16:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Data can take either a singular or plural verb in standard English, but be consistent within a piece of writing, always check the style policy of your organization, and make yourself familiar with the grammatical debate that exists around them.
Oxford Dictionaries Blog
There's something that may be of interest here: a user essay called the " Yogurt Principle". It covers the long sad story of the 8 year ugly battle to move Yoghurt to Yogurt, which ended only when the move finally succeeded. The "principle" it proposes is to suggest asking the question, "if a proposed change were done, would anyone later bother to try and change it back"? It could be asked here: if this article was changed to "data is", would there be any more drive-by edits to change it back to "data are"? I really doubt it. Changing can end the current drive-by edits (see article edit history), and all further discussion. The only arguments for "data are" here are based on "let's just keep it the way it is". If changed, those same arguments would then join the consensus for "data is", making it overwhelming and permanent. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 20:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
(I have moved the following from MOS Talk as more appropriate here. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 01:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC))
With counting of "data is" vs "data are" being presented as evidence for some WP preference, I should point out that's not evidence for any preference of data as a plural of datum vs. data as a mass noun. In phrases like "different types of data are used", the subject is "types", not "data", so "are" is used regardless of data being a mass noun. There are many other indicators of count vs. mass, such as "fewer data" vs. "less data". English being what it is, the varieties pertinent variations on this are virtually endless. A better indicator (though still not perfect) would be counting the occurrence of "data" vs. "datum" in articles; in general, any article that uses "data" as a plural is at least somewhat likely to use its singular form as well, while articles using it as a mass noun are very unlikely to use "datum". -- A D Monroe III( talk) 15:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
... editors should not change an article from one styling to another without "substantial reason"
WP Manual of style
Nothing to do with ENGVAR
|
---|
While MOS:ENGVAR clearly applies to inter-language variations of English language we can consider its teachings in the context of this intra-American English language variation. Specifically:
Monroe agrees that both varients are used in American English thereby admitting there are no "strong national ties" so that if we apply the teachings of MOS:ENGVAR we will not change the article. Tom94022 ( talk) 19:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR has nothing to do with this discussion at all, not does it's parts. It is solely about differences between dialects in different countries, such as the differences between British and American English. It is totally irrelevant here and a red herring. oknazevad ( talk) 15:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
|
Several have asserted that "data" as in this Disk Storage article is a mass noun usage and therefore the article should use "data is." Disk storage is almost always enumerated in bytes which would justify the plural noun "data are" useage herein. The Access Methods section contains some enumeration information; it could be improved making the capacity ranges of the various disk storage media more clear and further supporting the plural noun useage. Tom94022 ( talk) 06:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
MOS suggests this is a style retention issue
|
---|
(Edited from MOS) There seem to be at least four sets of opinons:
At least three of the four groups are represented above and it looks like no consensus will be reached here. Furthermore, it is an often repeated problem; a search of article talk pages turns up 1,022 instances of both varients. An analysis of the first 500 hits (about half) shows 288 articles discussing this issue in 2017 with hits going back to 2005 - here is the the detailed analysis. So "this dispute is recurrent and flamey enough that MoS should say something specific about it." It really doesn't matter if MoS addresses the more general issue of varients within a language (more or less along the lines of MOS:ENGVAR) or just this issue - my recommendations specifically for "data" are:
While this discussion attempts to limit itself to this article and closely related articles my research clearly shows this is enough of an repeated historical problem that it should be addressed in MOS. Tom94022 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
|
Per the RfC statement, this RfC asks:
In this article, should "data" be used as a count noun (the plural of "datum") or mass noun (like "information")? This affects its grammatical use in many sentences; examples: "the data are stored" vs. "the data is stored", and "SSDs hold fewer data" vs. "SSDs hold less data".
The #Survey starts with suggestions for !voting:
Data are or Data is?
The suggested shorthand for voting was in no way meant to override the RfC as written. "Data are" !votes mean "'Data' is grammatically the plural of 'datum' in this article" and "Data is" !votes mean "'Data' is grammatically a mass noun in this article". Standard English grammar and WP guidelines would still apply, regardless of the text of the shorthand !voting. As per the RfC as written, a !vote for either "data is" or "data are"
affects its grammatical use
(emphasis added); it will not blindly replace all instances of "data is" or "data are" with the shorthand !vote, overriding correct English grammar, and WP rules for not changing quotes, etc.
Specifically, "pieces of data are" would remain unchanged in this RfC, as "pieces of data" is a plural noun phrase, regardless of whether data is a mass noun or count noun, and plural noun phrases use "are". -- A D Monroe III( talk) 00:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not an English variety issue coverred by MOS:RETAIN; it is a style retention issue
|
---|
Per
MOS:RETAIN,
Following RETAIN requires that we go with "data is". Oh, and once again, the whole article is part of Data storage (mass), not Datum storage (count). So even if the article was ever made consistent with "data are", per RETAIN, the article should be changed to reflect its fundamental ties with data as a mass noun. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 15:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC) |
My bad. I meant MOS:STYLERET, not MOS:RETAIN. Sorry. Let's try this again at #MOS:STYLERET, just below. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 17:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Per
MOS:STYLERET, editors should not change an article from one styling to another without "substantial reason"
size of data to be stored(data as mass) instead of number of data to be stored or size of datum to be stored (data as count noun)
controlling the data transfer(mass) instead of controlling the datum transfer (count)
user data bits are transferred(mass); there's no grammatical way to have two plurals in a row here -- it would be like saying trees leaves, the first noun has to be singular or a mass noun to make a noun phrase.
"gross" data transfer rate(mass) instead of "gross" datum transfer rate. (count)
Following #MOS:STYLERET requires that we go with "data is".
Oh, and once again, the whole article is part of
Data storage (mass), not
Datum storage (count). So even if the article was ever made consistent with "data are", per MOS:STYLERET "substantial reason"
, the article should be changed to reflect its fundamental ties with data as a mass noun. --
A D Monroe III(
talk)
17:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of consensus this discussion should be closed without changing the article.
An opinion at MOS on this specific subject is that this discussion falls under Retaining Existing Styles which states, "... editors should not change an article from one styling to another without "substantial reason" " I agree.
There are about 30,000 WP articles that use one form or the other of data are/data is. In these articles WP editors use "data are" over "data is" by a ratio greater than 4/3 so that actual style used by actual WP editors demonstrates there there is no "substantial reason" for a change. The best unsubstantial reason raised above is that "data is" is "more common" in general works. It is not relevant in WP where editors prefer "data are;" making WP more of a technical publication where "data are" is more common. Either is acceptable.
I would note that this has been a very stable article and I am the only editor participating in this discussion who contributed to the article. It is one of about 17,000 WP articles exclusively using "data are." So I ask why put all this effort into imposing a rule in this one article and oppose taking it to MOS? There is nothing about its usage herein that is any different than its usage in the other 17,000 article! If this is not a question of retaining an existing style then shouldn't it be discussed at MOS? If it is a retention question then the discussion should be closed with the article unchanged. Tom94022 ( talk) 18:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: The closure of this RfC was reviewed and endorsed; see Request review of closure at Disk storage. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 21:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, College of Engineering, Pune, India supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not mentioned in the article that these days, 'disk storage' is also used to refer to any kind of non-volatile memory to distinguish it from volatile memory (RAM). Like for example the non-volatile flash memory of a smartphone is often dubbed 'disk storage', in spite of not being a physical rotating disk at all. MFX ( talk) 07:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)