Latest comment: 2 months ago by Jameel the Saluki in topic 1970?

Requested move 16 April 2022Edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Although participants are more-or-less evenly divided from a numerical perspective, the arguments in support of a move are noticeably stronger. The supporters' arguments appealed to several relevant policies and guidelines, including MOS:ACROTITLE and the factors listed at WP:CRITERIA. The WP:CRITERIA argument – essentially that the proposed title is more recognizable and more concise than the current title, consistent with the article titles for other similar acronyms, and just as precise as the longer version – is rooted in policy, and the argument based on MOS:ACROTITLE, which encourages the use of acronyms in titles when the subject is known primarily by that acronym, is reasonable as well. By contrast, the opposers' arguments often were not based in our policies and guidelines. The suggestion that a move is "just pointless" because ISBN is already a redirect is not supported by any policy or guideline, and several other !votes seemed to appeal to personal preference instead of our naming conventions or WP:IAR. As a closer, my task is to assess consensus, which requires me to consider "the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions", bearing in mind that "this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority". See WP:RMCI#Determining consensus. In my view, the opposers do not adequately rebut the supporters' strong policy-based arguments, and there is thus a consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International Standard Book NumberISBN – The abbreviation is way more recognizable than the full name, since the abbreviation is the name that is printed on books. It is equally precise and consistent, and better on concision PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ACROTITLE, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and WP:CONCISE, like recent RMs for SARS, MERS and COVID-19, and other cases like HIV/AIDS and CT scan. WP:ACROTITLE says "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject", and that is the case here. WP:ACROTITLE also says "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title," and it is certainly the case that most people would recognise this topic by the acronym rather than the spelled-out phrase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per BarrelProof. Colin M (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose Britannica uses the fill name in the URL but the acronym in the page title. I think somewhat like WHO or CIA the full name is commonly used enough to be used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Crouch, Swale What Britannica uses is irrelevant for Wikipedia, we have our own naming policy that we should follow. The Central Intelligence Agency and World Health Organization are commonly spelled out in the media, while ISBN is not. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Britannica is normally regarded as one of the standard sources for articles titles here WP:COMMONNAME states "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Abstain for technical acronyms (like ISBN or HTTP) I would prefer the longer name be used as the article title. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - on first introduction (ie page titles and lede sentences), we should lean toward expansion of abbreviations. -- Netoholic @ 04:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    By way of reference, check how people known most commonly by pseudonyms are handled. Check Lil Nas X, for example. Yes, the lead begins "Montero Lamar Hill ..., known by his stage name Lil Nas X, ...". No, the article's title isn't "Montero Lamar Hill". Largoplazo (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose No way. ISBN already redirects to this. This is just pointless. Cool guy (talkcontribs) • he/they 14:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment So far, it seems that the only really convincing argument rooted in policies and guidelines is made by @BarrelProof:. Note to the closing editor, per WP:DETCON, consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments and not the number of votes. The argument by @Crouch, Swale only states that Britannica "may be helpful", but does not seem to be anything more than that. Other against comments seems to be phrased like WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let me give a more detailed response:
    1. ISBN already redirects to here.
    2. Other "international numbers" don't use acronyms.
    3. Pointless change. We were doing good with this title. Why change it?
    4. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here. As stated above, the term ISBN already redirects to here. And it's commonly abbreviated because "International Standard Book Number" is kind of long, don't your think? Infact, readers wanting to learn what "ISBN" means could just search it up here and boom! Title says "International Standard Book Number". Got it! Without having to ever read even the lead.
    Cool guy (talkcontribs) • he/they 18:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why doesn't WP:COMMONNAME apply here? WP:COMMONNAME discussions usually involve which term or terms will be redirects as well as which term will be the title of the article, so this is as ordinary as such a discussion gets in that regard. Largoplazo (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It does apply here, but so do other concerns which are more important. In the case of acronyms, a lot of people google or come to Wikipedia specifically for what acronyms stand for, so we should present that information first and foremost and not make them expend another click just to get that. -- Netoholic @ 23:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Expend another click? Zero clicks is zero more than zero clicks. If you Google ISBN now, you get the entire first sentence. If ISBN were the article's title, and you Googled ISBN, you would get the entire first sentence. Zero further clicks would be required in both cases to get that information. Largoplazo (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but do we REALLY need this change? After all, ISBN is a 4 letter acronym that could mean many different things. Sure, it may not, but not everyone is gonna immediately think of the "International Standard Book Number" when hearing ISBN. If it ain't broke, don't fix it in short Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 00:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not aware of anything else that it might stand for. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per BarrelProof's well-reasoned argument. Calidum 18:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    People familiar with ISBNs would know what it stands for, as quoted "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title." However, people who are familiar with ISBNs (authors, librarians, and the like) would probably know what it means. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 19:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

Internal link to another Wikipedia article neeededEdit

There is mention of the precursor to the ISBN (the SBN) which is not linked to the article that already exists about the creator of SBN on Wikipedia at this location: — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamWaldman (talkcontribs) 11:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gordon Foster is already mentioned and linked in the second sentence of the History section. I see nothing that needs to be changed. GrindtXX (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update Registrant element sectionEdit

The section "Registrant element" states, in the second paragraph that a listing of publisher codes can be ordered in book form, and that ISBN's website doesn't offer the ability to search for publisher codes. I believe this is outdated an needs updating, as I am unable to find a place to purchase a book of publisher codes but I am able to search for publishers at RosierFox (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have books from the 1950's with ISBNs in them. So 1970 cannot be right. (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you sure that they were printed in the 1950's, rather than a reprint of a 1950's edition? Can you give an example with title and ISBN. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]