Talk:ThinkStation

COMPUNITS
COMPUNITS reads "Do not assume that the binary or decimal meaning of prefixes will be obvious to everyone. Explicitly specify the meaning of k and K as well as the primary meaning of M, G, T, etc. in an article ( is a convenient helper). Consistency within each article is desirable, but the need for consistency may be balanced with other considerations." My edit made the meaning obvious. Yours achieved the opposite. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * From 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. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the contradiction in COMPUNITS. That contradiction does not alter the fact that your edit does not satisfy COMPUNITS, because it assumes the meaning of the prefixes is obvious, when it is not, so citing WP:COMPUNITS does not justify your revert. My edit improved the article by making the meaning clear. How did your edit improve the article? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any contradiction. Your edit did not improve the article. My edits follow our Manual of Style. If you feel there is some issue with the MoS, your best bet is to discuss it at WT:MOSNUM. Did you have any other questions? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Your edits selectively follow one part of the MoS and violate another. Your edits do not follow the MoS as a whole and they certainly do not follow the *spirit* of the MoS, which is to bring clarity and cohesion. The MoS explicitly states "Do not assume that the binary or decimal meaning of prefixes will be obvious to everyone". Your edits assume the meaning of GB will be understood by all readers, and thus violate this MoS requirement. Worse still, your edits deleted multiple spaces (between value and unit) that are also required by MoS. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you misunderstand the directions provided at WP:COMPUNITS. Perhaps if you avail yourself of the participants at WT:MOSNUM you can get your misunderstanding cleared up so in the future you won't make these types of mistakes again. As to the spaces, they were, sadly, a casualty of the correction I made on your other edits. You're welcome to place the spaces back sans the IEC units. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding the spaces would not resolve the ambiguity introduced by your edits. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take potentially ambiguous over wrong, which is what the article was with your edits. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My edits were not wrong, or at least you've not mention an error before (perhaps because there wasn't one?). And your edit clearly introduced ambiguity (the symbol "GB" is used with 2 different meanings), so there's no "potential" about it. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were wrong. GiB is almost never used to refer to memory (see JEDEC memory standards), but your edits to this article and the others changed it in reference to memory. Simply linking GB to the article (gigabyte) would address any potential ambiguity. Your edits also violate WP:NOR and WP:V. And there's still WP:COMPUNITS. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You clearly know the difference between decimal and binary units, and by citing JEDEC you show awareness that computer memory is counted in binary units. That means my edits were correct. You need to admit this so we can move on and discuss the actual merits of one form of disambiguation over another (as I've already pointed out, MOSNUM explicitly requires disambiguation, and you have so far ignored this requirement). V and OR are valid arguments I am willing to discuss. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm disengaging from this discussion as you apparently just refuse to "get it". Go discuss this at WT:MOSNUM if you wish to change how the MoS address IEC units and get a consensus to change that, until then, your edits will not be included in articles. Good day. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.