Talk:bubbabyte

Request for verification
The prefix bubba- is not recognized as a valid unit of measurement in English. Cannot verify etymology of bubba. Not accepted by IEEE or ANSI. Cannot find common usage after performing a Google search.


 * RFVfailed. A protologism coined by Peter Van der Linden "In 1993, I coined the term "Bubbabyte" to describe 2M bytes." that sees some usage on google groups as part of an email adress, and also as a proposed large number of bytes: "After Trilobyte, I suggest Bubbabyte. By the time we get there, rednecks will have finally figured out how to use their computers for things other than porn ". (Interesting that google are letting people opt out of archives, does this ruin our "durably archived"?), same again: "Put these two facts together and a potential definition of "bubbabyte" starts to coalesce ;-)" Conrad.Irwin 17:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude, you can't call a word "RFVfailed" after less than a day. You can speedy-delete it as a protologism, but if you want it to actually fail RFV, you have to wait a month. —Ruakh TALK 17:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but sometimes it is fairly obvious that a word is going to fail - and hanging around for a month just gives forks and mirrors a chance to copy it and give it life. SemperBlotto 17:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But forks and mirrors don't pay attention to comments on this page, only to whether the entry exists. A premature "RFVfailed" comment accomplishes nothing. My suggestion ("You can speedy-delete it as a protologism") is actually more effective. —Ruakh TALK 18:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A 1996 Usenet citation is possible, but I think it's a "mention" rather than a use: "It may not be SI but I've seen it used: the bubbabyte." Overall this seems doomed to fail. Equinox ◑ 02:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That mention, though, refers to other uses, so, imo, counts (if it fits our definition. I haven't checked the citation). &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree: we have no way of knowing what that writer really means by "used"; perhaps (s)he means what we would call "mentioned". Or for that matter, perhaps (s)he's totally lying. We're not in the habit of accepting secondary sources, but if we were to do so, I think we'd need to apply something like w:Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Ruakh TALK 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)