Talk:Memory hierarchy

Per WP:COMPUNITS, we do not use IEC units like mebibyte (MiB), gibibyte (GiB) and so on except in very limited situations (which this article is not covered by). Further, our sources do not support the language used. I've tagged the impacted sections as appropriate to reflect the current status of the article as not being reliably sourced and containing original research. There is also a balance concern as WP:UNDUE weight is being given to units of measure which are not widely used in the public (which is precisely why WP:MOSNUM forbids their use). Quoth WP:COMPUNITS:

The IEC prefixes kibi- (symbol Ki), mebi- (Mi), gibi- (Gi), etc., are generally not to be used except:

• when the majority of cited sources on the article topic use IEC prefixes;
• in a direct quote using the IEC prefixes;
• when explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes; or
• in articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary, or in which converting all quantities to one or the other type would be misleading or lose necessary precision, or declaring the actual meaning of a unit on each use would be impractical.

If no valid reason for keeping these units is provided, I'll correct them again in the near future. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The assertions above that the use of IEC binary prefixes is a violation of WP:COMPUNITS and that a mathematical transformation is somehow OR. Neither assertion is true.

• WP:COMPUNITS gives an exception to use IEC binary prefixes in articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary. This is such an article.
• It is not OR to do mathematical transformations. For example, The first usage in the Examples section with "Level 0 (L0) Micro operations cache – 6,144 bytes (6 KiB)[8] in size" alerts the reader to the usage of SI Binary prefixes. The the published value is 6KB which is mathematically 6,144 B or 6 KiB; it is not WP:OR to use either or both mathematical transformations.

This article has been in this style for quite some time. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. So far I see no substantial reason for a change and it would be inappropriate for any changes at this time. It would be useful to have other editor comments. Tom94022 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Both assertions are true. This article should not be using IEC prefixes as it does not meet any of the requirements to use them. WP:COMPUNITS provides methods of giving clarity to readers which obviate the need for IEC prefixes. And yes, performing your own transformation from what a source says into something a source doesn't say is in fact the definition of original research. Zero sources use the IEC prefixes as currently displayed in this article. WP:COMPUNITS is clear on what must happen here. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The assertion of OR is ridiculous, and it's easy to show that. The other assertion is debatable, but lacks credibility partly because of the OR claim and partly because you make zero attempt in any of your edits to disambiguate, even though you know disambiguation is required by COMPUNITS. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The assertion of OR is ridiculous, and it's easy to show that. Cool story bro. Show it then. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Replacing “KB” with “KiB” is a routine calculation. We all know they mean the same thing. It’s no more OR than replacing other non-standard unit symbols “Mbps”, “Kg” or “kt” with the standard symbols “Mbit/s”, “kg” or “kn”, or countless other examples. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Replacing “KB” with “KiB” is no different than converting miles to km, inches to cm, etc. Tom94022 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

So if I make up some term I can just go around the Wiki and replace longstanding and widely used terms with my made up one? Fascinating. I state that the Lockibi is equal to 0.334cm, with a Lockibim equal to 1000x that. I'll begin the work of moving all of our distance statements in articles to this new, superior, definition of length. Thank you all for your understanding and making me aware that when it comes to units of measure, we can ignore WP:UNDUE and just widely report on units of measure with barely any actual public use. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

You cannot expect us to take your arguments seriously with nonsense like this. The kibibyte and mebibyte are defined by international standards and used by 100s of peer-reviewed publications a year. There's no such thing as a "Lockibi". I have reverted your OR tags. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

This kind of nonsense, as pointed out, is typically the result when arguing with editors who insist on refusing to acknowledge progress and the ever-increasing use of the (not-so-)new units. Arguing and following down the rabbit hole with them is a waste of time; they will never concede to the progress and established notable trend, and typically resort to bullying (like posting groundless attacks on individual user talk pages, "We won, you loose", "you're gaslighting", and on and on...) This has been going on for years and years, and is probably the only reason for the vague and conciliatory language in the MOS, written to appease them and shutdown the warring. The idea that there were dozens of them who found consensus is unsubstantiated, some of them were likely mere socks of themselves. The use and benefit of binary prefixes is an accepted fact, and is shown in hundreds or thousands of pieces of software comprising modern cutting-edge computing. New editors come to Wikipedia all the time creating articles with these units–surely an impressive fact that shows their acceptance. But what happens? They get changed to confusing representations, unbecoming of modern information technology. Every other aspect of many WP articles is disambiguated at nauseam, but not this. Let editors make their own choices. I have not seen such militant behavior by those who do accept these units; they do not go around and change every WP article to new units. They understand that there is a historical background to all this and not every article needs brute-force-conversion. The train toward binary prefixes has long left the station, there is really no point in arguing about it anymore. Accumulating justification by producing lists of use is silly and unproductive. They don't persuade anyone. And finally, surely, these units do not sound any sillier (a common attack) than giga, atto, or yocto. Get with it or shut up. kbrose (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Removed Locke Cole's attempt to filibuster this discussion and reported him for edit warring. This talk page is the appropriate place to discuss its content which so far has two editors in favor of continuing the long time use of IEC prefixes herein. Moving the discussion to WP:COMPUNITS is WP:FORUMSHOP. Tom94022 (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Uh... you need to re-read WP:FORUMSHOP because that's exactly what you're doing by deliberately avoiding WT:MOSNUM. You aren't going to change WP:COMPUNITS on this obscure talk page, and WP:COMPUNITS is what will decide whether or not IEC units are used here. Not two editors off in some corner trying to undermine a decision they don't agree with. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please read carefully read WP:COMPUNITS - it clearly allows the use of IEC binary units on " articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary, ..." which is clearly the case here until you imposed your POV. Since this article clearly qualifies for such usage your attempting to move the discussion in fact formum shopping. The editors of this page have de-facto decided it qualifies and you certainly are entitled to raise the question here but you shouldn't impose your POV. Tom94022 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

LOL!!!! The editors of this page have de-facto decided it qualifies; translation: "We've decided that we're an exception to the site-wide consensus, so those dozens of editors who participated at WT:MOSNUM will have to come argue here to prove us wrong". Yeah... no.... do you even logic? I suppose that applies to WP:V too? After all, who needs verifiability when two editors can decide on their own that they're an exception? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply