On Sat 31 Jan 2026 at 17:55:58 (-0700), [email protected] wrote: > From: David Wright > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 16:24:22 -0600 > > There are two different pages being consulted here: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_disc_image > > > > and: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_image > > > > the second one being reached by a redirect from: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Optical_disk_image&redirect=no > > The chaos was mostly because I cited Optical_disk_image rather than > Optical_disc_image. > > Fixed now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_disk_image redirects > to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_disc_image.
Bravo. > The first sentence in "Optical disc image" also has link "disk image" to > Disk_image. > > Spelling covered here. > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disk#Alternative_forms > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disk#Usage_notes > > > The author of the first page can't even manage a consistent spelling > > in the five words "disk sector by disc sector", quoted by the OP. > > Many people have seen that. The blame is spread widely. > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Optical_disc_image&action=history > > Easily fixed. Just click on Edit near the top and correct as you see > fit. It had occurred to me that the author(s) might be trying to emphasise that sectors were going to be read off a magnetic disK and written onto an optical disC. Otherwise, it would be more idiomatic just to put "sector by sector". However, I'm not convinced that you can do that, because the disK with the image on it could have 512-byte sectors, yet the optical disC sectors are more likely to be twice or four times that. (I'm the dumb one here, so I hesitate to make changes and misinform.) Cheers, David.
