Talk:gigabel

RFD discussion: February–April 2017
Recently removed from fr because it is not an SI unit (only bel and decibel are). Remember to also remove links e.g. in GB and gigabels. There may be other derivatives. — Dakdada 14:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The mere fact it's not SI doesn't count against it, as long as it's used in text - in fact, decibel itself is not an SI unit (rather it's a non-SI unit accepted for use with SI). However, I can't imagine any time you'd have to use a gigabel - it would be an extremely weird unit where 1 GB = a factor of 10^1,000,000,000 (for comparison, a nuclear bomb is 280 dB, or 28 B, or 0.000000028 GB. I've never encountered any physical phenomena that has involved such ludicrous factors - a gigabel of anything (sound, light, radio waves), defined relative to any sensible scale, would be something so powerful that it defies our current understanding of the laws of physics). I did however find enough citations to keep it, all using it in an imprecise, jokey way.
 * Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, kilofoot is another real word for a "quasi-SI" unit. Equinox ◑ 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So we should at least change the definition and remove the link to GB. — Dakdada 11:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kilofoot may actually mean 1000 feet, but gigabel can’t be a real unit. It is always a way of exaggeration. We should define it so. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the "scientific" definition and replaced it with a definition of the jocular sense which Smurray finds citations of above. Improve the definition as needed. - -sche (discuss) 09:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * RFD closed, with the modified definition to be kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)