Talk:zettagramme
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
British, rare, blahblahblah... the fact is that nobody has used it in writing. Equinox ◑ 02:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- No hits on either Google Groups of Google Books. I will be disappointed to see these spellings deleted. --Pilcrow 02:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a spelling issue: even zettagram is probably not attestable. We've had previous discussions about these "theoretically acceptable but not actually used" units. Equinox ◑ 02:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've found two and only two cites for zettagram, if you want to have at it.--Prosfilaes 19:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a spelling issue: even zettagram is probably not attestable. We've had previous discussions about these "theoretically acceptable but not actually used" units. Equinox ◑ 02:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Soft redirect all of these to Appendix:SI units, and add some content there about prefixes and suffixes commonly used in other languages. bd2412 T 19:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)