Talk:Floppy disk

Spelling
Is there any significance to "Floppy Disk" spelled with a "k" vs. "Compact Disc" spelled with a "c"? 24.51.192.49 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Compact Disc" is trademarked, "Floppy Disk" is not, the HDD folks adopted disk to avoid potential trademark issues with IBM and that carried over into FD. Tom94022 (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If one reads HP manuals and marketing materials from the 1980s, the word was always spelled with a 'c'. Similar material from IBM spells with a 'k'.  The 'k' won out at some point.  Since the 'c' spelling was in use long before CDs were invented, I think it's doubtful that a concern over trademark issues was the cause. Christopher Rath (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The decision was in the 1960s so HP materials from the 1980s are pretty much irrelevant. Tom94022 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

5.25 Floppies
The older "360K" floppies (and I'm speaking about IBM-style formatted capacities) had a reinforcing center ring where the drive would clamp the disk. This ring was eliminated on the 1.2M floppies. What was the original idea behind this and why was it deemed unnecessary on the very similar-looking 1.2M disks? 57.135.233.22 (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the ring was not standard on any 5¼-inch FD - AFAIC recall it was added by some vendors to prevent or reduce damage caused by the various FDD clamping mechanisms, which would then make the disk unreliable. Tom94022 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at all the pictures of 5.25" disks in the article because I didn't believe you and I don't see any with that ring, so I guess you're right. "Mandela effect" or something. :) .... 57.135.233.22 (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Fraction characters
Re: this revert, what's the reason for preferring vulgar fraction characters in these section titles? "5.25" and "3.25" are already being used in subsection headers of Floppy disk. Per MOS:FRAC, articles that use vulgar fractions not on the approved list must use frac, but this cannot be used in link targets, so using decimals in section headers makes it less awkward to link here from those articles and for automated scans to show they have been fixed. -- Beland (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, MOS:FRAC admits an acceptable exception "If ¼, ½, and ¾[k] are the only fractions needed" where [k] says these characters "are in ISO/IEC 8859-1 and work in screen readers". I think we want screen readers (and everyone else) to read these as "five and a quarter" and "three and a half" (rather than "five point two five" and "three point five") because that's what these floppy disks were generally called in their day. Tayste (edits) 03:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well, I have changed all the instances of frac and decimal fractions to use the Unicode characters. The section headers actually have supplemental anchors with decimal fractions, so links from other articles should work fine. -- Beland (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making this change. The decision for consistency had been sitting out there for awhile. ShadyCrack (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Single-sided 5¼" floppies and IBM-compatible PCs
A user has recently questioned and summarily reverted part of an edit which added the information that flippy disks (and single-sided floppy drives) were never common on IBM-compatible PCs. It's harder to google arcana that predate Google, but for clarity, this relates mainly to the 160KB (and 180KB) 5¼" floppy disk formats, i.e. those formats that show a 1 in the fourth column here. The actual common 5¼" formats on IBM-compatible PCs were double-sided double density (DSDD, i.e. 320 or 360KB) and later double-sided high density (DSHD, 1,200KB). (The capacity expansion from 160 to 180K and 320 to 360K was a software upgrade with DOS 2.0 in 1983.) Everything else was relatively uncommon, but single-sided drives were especially rare on the PC because only the earliest 1981 announcement referenced 160KB (i.e. single-sided double density, SSDD) drives. (Single density floppies were never a thing on IBM PCs.) When IBM PCs started shipping in volume, IBM had moved on to double-sided drives, which soon became pretty much the only option on IBM-compatibles. However, right around the same time, single-sided 5¼" floppy drives and disks were VERY common on HOME COMPUTERS, most notably the C64. Regarding the actual IBM PC, some of the best-respected sources don't even mention single-sided 160/180K floppy drives anymore, and for good reason: For practical purposes virtually every IBM PC with a floppy drive was double-sided capable.

The repeated reversions are especially uncalled-for because the relevant edit summary demonstrates the reverting user doesn't even understand what is asserted, which even when assuming good faith is still at least a stark lack of reading comprehension. The assertion they contest was specifically about IBM-compatible PCs, so anything beyond PCs cannot possibly be a counterargument to it. Given that poor reading comprehension, I would also not be surprised if the disruptive repeat-reverter was confusing sides (single vs double) with density (mainly double vs high, on the PC). —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There were two reversions to newly added material in the section which covers both 8-inch and 5¼-inch FDs and FDDs, both additions were unreferenced:


 * 1) Usage on "typically home" computers: These devices were shipped long before home computers were in any volume as shown by the referenced Disk/Trend reports, it is hard to justify "typically" without a reference and therefore it was deleted.
 * 2) Usage on IBM compatible PCs: While likely true the section relates to all usages and therefore this unreferenced assertion gives [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight] to this small and irrelevant market segment and therefore was deleted.
 * Please keep the ad hominem attacks to minimum - I did all your edits and do understand the differences between all the various FDs and FDDs. More than happy to see what other and polite editors have to say.  Tom94022 (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove tag bombing of the article?
has added 27 unexplained and unjustified tags to this article. This is literally tag bombing, a form of disruptive editing for which he may be sanctioned if he continues. This is the only contribution Nightscream has ever made to this article, but he is a prolific tag bomber, at least six articles fact tag bombed in the last three days (at least 43 out of last 500 edits)! As a contributor to this page, I am bothered by his littering the article with unexplained and unjustified fact tags. To the non-expert reader, it makes the page appear questionable when it is not. I'd like other editors interested in this article to comment on the merits of his tag bombing. While we try to reach consensus on the merits of this tag bombing, I have reverted the article to its original state which I understand to be the preferred status for dispute resolution. Comments please. Tom94022 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Fact tags are self-explanatory, so they don't need an explanation. I've been fact-tagging such sections for nearly two decades, without any problems, as have other members of the editing community here, as this is an accepted practice.


 * As for WP:TAGBOMB, I think you need to take a closer look at that pages, because that's an essay, not a policy nor guideline, so it's not likely to result in "sanctions." Nightscream (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)