Talk:List of ISO standards 1–1999

Splitting this article

This article is currently at ~438,000+ bytes, and is one of the largest on the wiki. After looking at the section sizes, scrolling through the article, and looking at the other lists of this same topic, I feel it would be wise to split the article into the following parts:

• List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-199
• List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 200-599
• List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 600-999
• List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1000-1999
• List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 2000-2999
• List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 3000-4999

This seems to be an approximately equal division after scrolling through the article, and the sizes may match up with the sizes of the other articles, which appear to be within the 30,000-50,000 byte range. @Onetwothreeip, Zsteve21, and Alexlatham96: Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with splitting this article.Alexlatham96 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think splitting between six articles may be too much, but I do agree with splitting the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I have divided the sections in order to make them proportionate with the other articles on this topic, which like I said are in between 30,000–50,000 bytes in size. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, but this article is just a long list of bullet points. I believe the appearance of the article is more of an issue. zsteve21 (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Splitting this article is a bad idea. As it stands, it is a useful resource for those interested in ISO standards. As usual, you guys want to split an article you don't understand for no good reason.VarmtheHawk (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason I want to split this article is due to length. The reason that I have suggested so many sections to be split is to make the sizes consistent with the other articles of this same topic.

@Onetwothreeip: Can you split this article now, with all of the different sections having their own article (I would but idk how). I said above why the article needs to be split into a lot of articles. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The article may need to be sectioned for ease of use at some point once it's finished, but that should be done by the technical contributors. You freely admit that you don't know anything about the subject, but keep interjecting yourself into it. You also seem to be the only one upset by its length, which is not out of line of with others in this category. VarmtheHawk (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blubabluba9990: Proper Wikipedia etiquette would have been for you to have discussed this on the Talk Page, but you chose to write something incoherent in the revert instead. From what I can glean from this revert explanation, you are planning to split this article into 13 equal sized articles. Elsewhere it says 6, and even at that, there is not support for this. As I stated before, this is a bad idea and I'll go further and say it's a stupid idea. By what Wikipedia policy are you referencing for this approach or is this just your idea? Your approach to splitting articles randomly is well known and shouldn't be applied here. And, by the way, soliciting others to support your viewpoint is also against Wikipedia policy. I won't re-revert your edits as I don't want to be accused of getting in an edit war, but would appreciate you responding in the appropriate manner. VarmtheHawk (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the talk page. And idk what you mean by soliciting users but this article definitely needs to be split. And I have said the reason for my section divisions and splits a few times here on the talk page. I do not wish to argue about this. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blubabluba9990 89.196.198.73 (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is over a year old. Why did you ping me here? Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

And there is support for this, as a few users above said that they agree. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

A tag was placed on this article by an anonymous user with no discussion and will therefore be removed. VarmtheHawk (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blubabluba9990: In response (your statements in bold):

1. This has been discussed on the talk page. No it wasn't. It was placed as a comment on the revert template.

2. And idk what you mean by soliciting users. I'm referring to your first comment above where you specifically asked onetwothreeip and Zsteve21 to help your cause. You do this frequently with them and this is against Wikipedia policy, particularly WP:NOSOLICIT and WP:TAGTEAM.

3. but this article definitely needs to be split. You have not given a reason as to why it should be split. Please do so in your response.

4. You have proposed above a split into 6 articles, which was rejected. Your other comments say you want split it into articles of 30k–50k size consistent with other articles on this topic. This could be as many as 18 articles. Is that what you are proposing?

5. You say you want to be consistent with other articles. What are you talking about?

6. And there is support for this, as a few users above said that they agree. No they didn't. In fact, onetwothreeip disagreed and Zsteve21 thought a bigger problem was the appearance of the article (whatever that might mean).

7. Are you the anonymous user who place the tag on the article? You claim that you sometimes edit with just an IP address.

VarmtheHawk (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

1. This whole discussion here is about the split.

2. I was pinging them which is specified on the page about article splits.

3. Length.

4. Yes

5. The sizes of the other articles are all 30K-50K bytes in size.

6. Well onetwothreeip agreed with a split.

7. No I am not.

Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Before this gets any more heated, I am going to assume this has no consensus. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blubabluba9990, VarmtheHawk, Onetwothreeip, Zsteve21, and Alexlatham96: I have WP:BEBOLD and split the article into two: List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-1999 and List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 2000-4999. Before the split this was the largest article on Wikipedia, so clearly things needed to be changed. starship.paint (exalt) 03:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Blubabluba9990, VarmtheHawk, Onetwothreeip, Zsteve21, Alexlatham96, and Starship.paint: Apparently, the split was reverted, but now the archiving by MiszaBot doesn't work. Why didn't the revert go back to List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999, instead of the title with the "period" at the end of it?? --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

BTW, List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 2000-4999 is still out there; this needs to be fixed, but I don't know what the consensus is.... --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The revert was botched. I have half a mind to start an RfC on this to get consensus. But, I’m pretty busy off-wiki. starship.paint (exalt) 16:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason the revert was "botched" is that the split was poorly done without consensus. As you can see from the discussion above, there is no consensus as to the final structure of the article and no one seems to be able to answer the question as to why the split is necessary. The use of WP:BEBOLD is not appropriate when splitting an article that is under discussion. VarmtheHawk (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@VarmtheHawk: - simple, WP:TOOBIG (Readable prose size > 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided and WP:SUBARTICLE Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically). starship.paint (exalt) 09:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not reading this right, but XTools says that this article has a readable prose size of 433 bytes. VarmtheHawk (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Starship.paint 89.196.198.73 (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC: split very long article?

At the time of this post, this is the largest article on Wikipedia: 566,764 bytes per Special:LongPages. Should we split the article (I propose, into three: List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1–999, List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1000–2999, and List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 3000–4999) or do not split? starship.paint (exalt) 09:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Pigsonthewing, Blubabluba9990, Alexlatham96, Onetwothreeip, Zsteve21, and VarmtheHawk:. Notify previous commenters and page creator. starship.paint (exalt) 09:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Split - per WP:SPINOUT: Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically. Luckily there is ample precedent for such splitting - most of the other lists of ISO standards are lists of around 1000 or 2000 ISO standards (e.g. 8000-8999, 14000-14999, 26000-27999). Why shouldn't we do the same even the extraordinary length of this article? Is there anything so special about 1-4999? starship.paint (exalt) 10:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Query Is there any reason why it should not be split? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Query What is the readable prose of this article as that seems to be the measure of a "long article"? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Don't split. I am able to navigate to any section via the subheadings in the TOC box. This is obviously a reference work in contrast to a prose article. So, there is no need to split. If the article were entirely prose, with paragraphs and subheadings, then I could see the rationale for splitting this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Split, very large articles do not work on the mobile apps for WP. A lot of smartphones don't have enough ram to display a very long article, and it freezes up the phone. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Query What are the requirements for articles to load onto mobile platforms? Load time, RAM, etc. I loaded this article onto my older iPhone with no delay or problems. This article seems to meet the technical requirements of Wikipedia. Are you saying that this particular article has problems on your phone? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have run into differences between iPhones and others on the size of image they will load, so there may well be a technical difference here, and most people do not have iPhones. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

There was a discussion on updating WP:AS to reflect current computing environments, but I'm not sure if it went anywhere. At any rate, it seems to me that a user trying to use this article on a phone (which is hard to imagine) may have more problems in searching if it's split in two. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Pulling up the article on the WP App on Android isn't the problem. When you go to "edit" and make changes, then it freezes up. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

There seem to be three questions here. First, would a split article behave any differently with respect to editing? Second, is that really a problem for this article as it seems to be mostly static without a lot of time-critical changes. Third, is there a Wikipedia requirement for ease of editing in all situations. The guide WP:AS has several suggestions to mitigate problems editing a long article. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Don't split (invited by the bot) Would make it much harder for readers to search for something because they wouldn't know which article it is in. North8000 (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly split It cannot be denied that the List of International Organization for Standardization standards is a mess, and that this article is too large. The size of each ISO article is too inconsistent to manage. It is contradicted that there is no good reason to split articles as the markup size doesn't matter, however there is also no good reason to keep articles large. The amount of readable prose doesn't really matter, as the list takes up most of the size, but the way that the article is presented is problematic. zsteve21 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Zsteve21 should not be allowed to vote on this issue since he was solicited in violation of Wikipedia policies WP:NOSOLICIT and WP:TAGTEAM. He also has a long history of splitting activism, causing him to be blocked from editing at one point. And what is "strongly split" even mean? VarmtheHawk (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Don't split The article is fine given the audience. It is no longer the longest article on Wikipedia, so that argument no longer holds. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Don't split Some of the arguments offered above are nonsense. The article is a "mess"? Wrong, it is quite well organized. "The size of each ISO article is too inconsistent to manage." I don't even know what that means. "The amount of readable prose doesn't really matter." Well, yes it does. That's what the policy states. "[T]he way that the article is presented is problematic." Clearly, Zsteve21 has no comprehension about ISO standards and given his history, he should self-revert his vote above. VarmtheHawk (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't the only one solicited. Just because I have a strong intent to split articles and was blocked at one point, it doesn't suggest that my points and arguments are irrational and everyone should always be welcome at discussing and voting. And if the amount of readable prose really matters, then how comes that the content of the list is not accounted for that, implying it is not well displayed? Also, the case of splitting does not concern the topic, considering that you are at every large article with different topics which claims that you know lots about each topic. I will not self-revert and if you have a problem with soliciting, find and talk to the one that did it. zsteve21 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Split I believe the article doesn't need to be split into many articles like previously suggested but should at least be split in twain into 1-1999 and 2000-4999. N1TH Music (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Split given WP:LENGTH. 70.124.147.243 (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete entirely as violating WP:NOTDIR * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  It isn't a violation of WP:NOTDIR it clearly states that some types of lists can remain in wikipedia and this is one such list. ISOs are quite notable and removing them would be removing dozens of articles which have been on the site for years. N1TH Music (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Huh? This series of lists has quite clearly become simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. I guess on second thought it doesn't actually need to be deleted and could be pruned to only standards with articles instead, but ISOs are quite notable needs evidence and removing them would be removing dozens of articles which have been on the site for years is completely irrelevant (Wikipedia:ARTICLEAGE). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)