Talk:ISBN/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Archives of old Discussions - Do Not Move

Archive 01 (Jan 05 – March 05 Archived) Old and outdated talk moved to Talk:International_Standard_Book_Number/Archive01 As was confused (especially with date order) with the talk being moved above. // FrankB 17:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive 02 (April 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007)

Archive 03 (January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009)

Archive 04 (January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010)

Move Proposal Discussion - FIXED Discussion, do not Archive for now

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

International Standard Book Number → ISBN — WP:COMMONNAME and this discussion. Note that ISBN redirects here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There are two names that are about equally good. When you need a short form, use 'ISBN', as in 'ISBN agencies.' When you want a more informative name, use 'International Standard Book Number.' I don't see the benefit of changing the name on the article. Both the short and the long form get many millions of Google hits, so the advice under WP:ABBR#Acronyms as words in article titles suggests that the MOS will let us go either way on this. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Question What is the other name that could be "ISBN"? ISBN redirects here and there is no hatnote to see something else. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you say more about this? I'm not perceiving the problem. 'ISBN' redirects to only one place. It does not require disambiguation, so there is no hatnote on ISBN. EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah I thought you meant there are two equally good meanings to "ISBN" not that "ISBN" and "International Standard Book Number" are equally good. I see now. Thanks for your time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NAME: "Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided [as article titles] unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation." I don't think this is such a case. Deor (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons given by EdJohnston and Deor. Whilst common, ISBN isn't common enough to justify changing the page title. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • weak Support. Partially per precedent: NATO, OPEC, HTML. The only example I tried that didn't follow the pattern was CSS (a redirect to cascading style sheets), or those that led to disambig pages (DRM, etc). Partially, because I've never heard/seen the full title referred to outside of Wikipedia articles; everyone uses/refers to "the ISBN". Either way is fine though. Not important enough to argue over. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clean Up and Synopsis rewrite

I am going to clean up the first part and add some material.

Prior to doing this I am going to make a list of fixes and changes. Then archive all the comments. Then a first draft rewrite. Is there anybody maintaining this?

Thanks meatclerk (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Does each book have only one ISBN?

When looking at books listed in a major online book-store, I see that all the English-language books I encounter have two ISBNs: one starting "ISBN-10:" and the other starting "ISBN-13:" I assume the 10 and 13 refer to the checking system. But the two numbers (i.e., that which follows the 13 and 10 respectively are different. Kdammers (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.isbn.org/standards/home/isbn/transition.asp. The ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 numbers for the same book should differ only in the prefix and the check digit. Eventually the ISBN-10 will disappear. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is an example where that does not seem to be the case (and I could add scores from the same source): 저자 : Stine, R. L. | 출판사 : Scholastic Paperbacks


교보문고 적립금은 다릅니다 모을 필요 없는 정직한 적립금 -10원의 적립금도 언제든지 사용 가능합니다. 온/오프 구별없는 통합 적립금 -한 번의 적립으로 인터넷에선 물론, 교보문고 전국지점 어디서나 사용할 수 있습니다. 중간 절차 없는 간편한 적립금 -상품평을 쓰거나 구매확인을 해야하는 불편한 적립금이 아닙니다 적립금은 구매하신 상품의 적립률에 따라 지급되며, 고객님의 주문이 출고 완료된 후 자동 적립됩니다. 쿠폰 또는 적립금 사용 시, 예상 적립금은 변동될 수 있습니다. (주문 후 취소, 출고 후 반품시에는 해당 적립금은 다시 차감 됩니다.)


출간일 : 2008년 11월 | 123쪽 | 언어 : English | ISBN-10 : 0545035228 / ISBN-13 : 9780545035224 Kdammers (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The pattern is followed. The prefix '978' is on the ISBN-13 and not the ISBN-10. The two numbers also differ in their final digit since that is the check digit. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Later SBN usage

An interesting oddity I've just noticed: [some?] Heinemann books continued to quote SBNs on their title page as late as 1984 editions. They're valid ISBNs, of course, they just hadn't changed to the ten-digit format and still printed them without leading zeroes. Old habits die hard... Shimgray | talk | 13:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference 20 is down

The reference 20 (ISBN guide) is down, making the whole article only "probably valid" :-) (I'm quite sure it's fine, but anyway) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.168.73 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Americanization of the ISBN Issuance Section

The way the section on ISBN issuance was written it was possible to read it so that people in the other 150 plus countries had to buy their ISBNs from Bowker in the United States. I had been wondering (I'm a Canadian Publisher) where the incorrect information was coming from, and I suspect they've all been getting it here. I've made a change to distract from the American centric viewpoint, but it is nearly 3:30 AM, and I'll admit that I'm two thirds asleep, so what I wrote may not make a lot of sense. There needs to be more stress at the start of the section on each country handling their own ISBN issuance, with Bowker, Collections Canada, and whoever else mentioned at the end I think. That should help steer people in the right direction for their country. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've re-written this section, and moved it to the main body, where it makes more sense. I'm still not happy with it though. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the wikification of the section Peter E. James, wikification has always been one of my weaknesses. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Standard Book Numbering" redirects here...

...so can someone tell me where to find the article on "Standard Book Number", which the British used until 1974? This article has just about no information on it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The original Standard Book Number is actually mentioned in the lead sentence, but if you blink you could miss it. See ".. based upon the 9-digit Standard Book Numbering (SBN) code created by Gordon Foster.." EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

have added a line on converting the SBN number to ISBN format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.90.15 (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

ISBN-13 check one module too much?

The check for ISBN-13 appears to be incorrect. The entire calculation is twice mod 10, which seems redundant. Can anyone confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.125.137.115 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Java code appears to have an error. In the first "for", it should be "< 13" (as is in the C/C++ and PHP code). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.19.226.190 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Bugs in the System

Shouldn't the article bring up the inherent bug, still not fixed, that you can't publish a two-volume set with ISBN? [1] Geĸrίtzl (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There's three main approaches - one ISBN for the whole set, individual ISBNs for each volume, or a combination of ISBNs for each volume plus one "set" ISBN, giving, say, four numbers for a three-volume set. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Open-source alternative to ISBN?

Given the extortionate costs and what appears to be illegal restraint of trade, I was looking for an alternative to the commercial ISBN number system. Unfortunately, this isn't easy because anything like "open-source isbn" immediately brings up numerous books on open source ... rather than the intended search item. So, it's very difficult to know whether it does not exist, I'm not searching with the right terms, etc. So, I tried, here, but apart from spotting a few other people who thing this whole system stinks, I couldn't see any project or alternatives to the commercial ISBN system. Is this correct? Is this one anti-competition, and as far as I can see illegal (in EU law) scheme has no alternatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2012‎

There is no widely-used alternative publishing identifier for books. There have been some national variants (I keep meaning to research the JBN) and at various times some publishers have used different schemes entirely, but none have really got wide traction.
The ISBN as it currently exists is certainly tied very closely to the bookselling industry, which is not much of a surprise given they designed and implemented the scheme for their own inventory-control purposes, but I don't think you can reasonably describe it as "anti-competition" or presumptively illegal. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

upgrade PHP 13

// PHP
function is_ISBN13_valid($n){
	if ( ! is_string($n)) return FALSE; // only strings accepted
	$n = preg_replace('/\D/', '', $n); // remove everything but digits
	if (strlen($n) != 13) return FALSE; // ISBN must have exactly 13 digits
	$check = 0; // reset
	for ($i = 0; $i < 13; $i++) $check += $i % 2 ? 3 * $n[$i] : $n[$i]; // multiply every second digit by 3
	return ! ($check % 10); // return TRUE if division by 10 has no remainder
}

or simplified version 

// PHP
function is_ISBN13_valid($n){
	$check = 0;
	for ($i = 0; $i < 13; $i++) $check += $i % 2 ? 3 * $n[$i] : $n[$i];
	return ! ($check % 10);
}

Could someone double check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrabutter (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

All

Do all books have an ISBN number? Is it limited to publishers or something? Pass a Method talk 22:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Official documentation of ISBN-10's check digit seems to be wrong

The old ISBN-10 documentation says to multiplicate the ISBN numbers by the sequence 10 to 2. This doesn't seem to be right, since all the ISBN-10 numbers mentioned in chapter Registrant element are calculated by the sequence 1 to 9. Furthermore, both sequences return the same check digit for the ISBNs 9971-5-0210-0 and 960-425-059-0.

Sequence 10 to 2:


Sequence 1 to 9:


Sequence 10 to 2:


Sequence 1 to 9:


What to do now? --Carminox (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Change the ISBN link

At present the "ISBN" part of an ISBN link goes to the WP article International Standard Book Number. It is an awfully complicated and in-depth treatment of the subject (which is a good thing of course). BTW it is No 92 on in the popularity list. I have created Help:ISBN as part of a reader help series. It is short and to the point - something that readers probable want for this sort of thing - so I propose that the ISBN link is changed to the new help page. I propose that the link is removed per the discussion below. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't need both the new Help:ISBN and the longstanding WP:ISBN. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Why not? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, Wikipedia needs more pages in the WP, MOS and Help namepaces as much as it needs a network outage. Had you announced that you had culled and merged a thousand of these pages I would have considered you for a barnstar. A better response to your problem ("the WP article ... is an awfully complicated and in-depth treatment") is to improve the article. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Help:ISBN looks to be useful for *readers* and WP:ISBN could assist *editors*. A person who wants to add an ISBN to a reference needs to see a longer explanation. Alan has suggested (above) that WP:ISBN is awfully complicated but I see it as being just as complex as the subject requires. The ISBN system is out there with all its wrinkles and quirks and our editors have to learn to navigate it. Advice to editors like 'avoid using the syntax ISBN-10' ought to be provided in some form, because otherwise the encyclopedia fills up with incorrect references. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I have pondered the ISBN-10 vs ISBN-13 digit ISBN usage and I do use the ISBN-13 digit if Zotero offers it up. Do you have a ref for preferring ISBN-13 digit? We should add that info to WP:ISBN. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Mr Stephen, we as editors are tasked with looking after 6,820,786 articles that can be freely edited. Without extensive MOS pages, guidelines and policies WP would be seething with even more unnecessary editing than that what we are currently seeing. There is a need to clean up a lot of the project pages and there is a need to have a stronger separation of editor and reader help pages (something I have been working on for a while). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed; and thank your for doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I think Alan Liefting's proposal is very sensible. Readers of Wikipedia don't need the same detailed explanation of ISBNs that editors need.Fagles (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I would be comfortable with this (or even with delinking the word ISBN altogether, as I suspect it causes more confusion than it solves). Andrew Gray (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't like having the ISBN and the number as adjacent links and am happy with not linking "ISBN". I have placed Help:ISBN as a hatnote on the Wikipedia:BookSources page {which is substed in Special:BookSources) so there is no real need to have ISBN linked anywhere. Ideally we should do a reader survey to see what they actually want. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Certainly in my introductory workshops (where I always point out ISBNs as a useful resource) I've found that the ISBN link is often clicked by accident (or by not noticing it's a seperate link), causing frustration and sometimes just bafflement. Unlinking it (and DOI, etc) would probably have the net result of making the interface simpler and less confusing, which can only be a good thing! Do you know what page we'd have to edit to change this behaviour, though? It's a hardcoded magic-word rather than a normal template. Andrew Gray (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
That's a good enough reason for me to have the link removed. I will talk to the tech heads to see how it can be changed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I support this proposal to remove the link, as the link stacking is undesirable, and what most of the readers and editors are probably interested in are the library catalogues that contain the cited book (i.e. Special:BookSources). This special page currently contains a link to Help:ISBN, but in my opinion a link to International Standard Book Number would be welcome too. That is, "given the 10- or 13-digit ISBN number" should be replaced with "given the 10- or 13 digit [[International Standard Book Number|ISBN number]]". --Eleassar my talk 10:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I too think there may be some wisdom in delinking ISBN from the cite templates. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm, what link are you talking about? ISBN 1234567890 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, seems to be all one link to me. Can you give an example of what link you mean and exactly what you would want changed? Dragons flight (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Yes. You are right. Looks like it is the {cite} templates that do it. Here is an example:
  • Carr, Edward Hallett (1972). What is history? : the George Macauley Trevelyan lectures delivered in the University of Cambridge, January-March 1961. Harmondsworth; Ringwood: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-020652-3.
Am glad there are wiser heads out there! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
That link is added to Citation Style 1 and other templates through {{citation/identifier}}: you can certainly request a change on the talk. You should make the same request at Module talk:Citation/CS1, as we will be updating templates to Lua in the future. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
BTW: the magic linking for ISBN outside of templates such as ISBN 978-0-471-70410-2 is done through Parser.php. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
All the other identifiers linked through the cite templates also include a link explaining what those mysterious initials "doi" "ISBN" "MR" "Zbl" "PMID" etc. stand for. This seems helpful and informative to me and I don't see a good reason for eliminating it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I made the same point at Template talk:Citation. If ISBN is worth removing, then so MR, SSRN, ZBL and the like. The core template supports 18 identifiers, and any number can be added through |id=; all of which link the identifier abbreviation. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
There are a few reasons for removing all of the links to MR, SSRN, ZBL and the like:
  • they are adjacent links
  • the number is more important
  • it is confusing for newbies
  • if the acronyms are mysterious the reader can always do a Wikipedia search for their meaning
Assuming they are presented in the same style as ISBN. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think "If things are mysterious they can Google it" is an appropriate attitude for building a usable online encyclopedia. What are wikilinks for, if not this? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, ignore that reason but still, on balance, the links are better left out. As I stated earlier for the ISBN case an explanation and link at Wikipedia:Book sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Is the ISBN not better known than any of these, though? The general public are usually hazy on exactly what it means (the edition/work distinction is particularly opaque), but IME most people seem to know that at least "ISBN" = "book-related thing" in some way, whereas even as a librarian I had to stop and look up "Zbl" or "MR". Andrew Gray (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
That is probably true so we could just concentrate on that link. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My normal practice is to give the isbn-13 if available, without dashes. I normally do not worry about just which isbn to use--libraries typically enter every possible isbn in a cataloging record, so any of them will find the book. For older books where there is no isbn I use OCLC is available, There will be some older non-English-language books where neither is available, and i add what iI can find. There is no real need in a WP reference to add all the numbers. However, I consider it a sound principle not to remove numbers that others have added. The reason libraries use redundant numbering schemes is that any one of them may be in error-- they all have a significant error rate. In particular, for nation bibliography numbers added by national or international agencies in other countries for their own countries books,, if they are in the article, I certainly would never remove them, and I advise others not to so so either. there's a real risk of losing information. The library principle is based on a very simple consideration: don't remove information because it is of no immediate use or you because you do not understand it. It is because of this very conservative principel that we have the preent interoperability of and universal usability of cataloging records.
The situation is changing. what will catalyze the change at WP is the availability of WikiData, which will provide a unified store for bibliographic information, This is not their highest priority, and planning is at an early stage. i swill certainly advise them to include all possible role numbers and bibliographic identifiers to provide as complete a record as possible for international use. (But Iam not advising them to copy the full cataloging record from LC or elsewhere--it is enough to link to it. Much of what is there is specific to library purposes, including the need to identify individual copies in individual libraries and to link to the record of book orders from publishers and dealers. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, the proposal isn't to remove the linked ISBNs themselves, which will still be present & still point to Special:Booksources; it's just to amend the link so that the word "ISBN" doesn't link to this particular page. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A hatnote on Special:Booksources, linking to an ISBN-related help page, should suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Researcher asking for advice

Hi, I'm a researcher working with massive data sets and I'm trying to find a wiki editor or anyone else who could advise me on the following:

  • I would like to download/parse for each ISBN (each book) a time stamp and the ISBNs of books it cites. Does this data set exist anywhere in any format? Thanks a lot!
  • I intend to do statistical tests on the data set as a whole, and I'm aware that (similarly to other large data sets) this one is not going be perfect, etc. Well, thanks anyhow for any comments you may have!

-- fij (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bug In ISBN-10 C++ Code

It doesn't account for an 'X' check digit (represents 10). 205.178.9.251 (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The C++ code is broken and should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.5.112.166 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the C++ code (and possibly the other code) doesn't appear to take into account the place value weighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.227 (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that the C/C++ code and some of the others have a "return check%10==0" instead of "return check%10==digits[12]". In order to check the validity of the ISBN, you are supposed to compare the checksum to the 13th digit, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.215.171 (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Uniqueness of ISBN's

ISBN's are not unique; I worked in the publishing industry and there are LOTS of ISBN's that are assigned to more than one book. They are assigned to books that don't even share the same title, subject or whatever...

I'd rather start the discussion here than go into the article and change stuff only to have it reverted by a bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.40.32.125 (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation? Examples? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
ISBN 1-55902-983-8 appears to be used for an entire collection of literary classics - I have "The Time Machine" by H.G. Wells under that ISBN, but if you check out some of the sources autolinked by Wikipedia for that ISBN, you can see that it is far from unique. Yevuard (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually ISBN is not unique in a conetxt of a Content Model. Print copy and ebook edition must have different ISBNs... The Wikipedia article not report this problem. Since ISBN is "unique title identifier" (which identifies a particular title or edition of a title) there are many ISBNs for the same content (same copyright). Each language version/adaptation, each edition, and each media type, that can be characterized as different product, may have a different ISBN. The Wikipedia article must explain better this problem. --Krauss (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The indecs Content Model is hardly the Content Model. This is not a problem, it is a feature; if you want an identifier that behaves otherwise, use an identifier designed to behave the way you want. The first sentence under Overview is quite clear: "An ISBN is assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book. For example, an ebook, a paperback, and a hardcover edition of the same book would each have a different ISBN." If it were otherwise, you couldn't order ISBN 0-345-44856-7 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum and know that you're getting a paperback English edition, which would defeat the purpose of ISBNs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, the first setence change is important (!). About "the model" or "a model" (I changed), you see that it is not the problem: indecs is the real and practical solution used by DOI, we can cite indecs as a good example of content model for "book content", to avoid ambiguities about "what is content". --Krauss (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The standard says ISBN should be unique. Duplicates can be found due to errors made by publishers rather then intentionally grouping different books. --Nux (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please check my explanation, it is about "content equivalence", not about editorial mistakes... "Print copy and ebook edition must have different ISBNs", yes is a fact... But, another fact is that Print copy and ebook edition have equivalent contents. People today, after 1990's, Web advent, tablet computers, etc., people today see ebook and book as the same target-product, that is the content. --Krauss (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Need for more explanation or a section about

ISBN uniqueness is "media/edition"-oriented identification of books, as explained above, and made sense in the 1970s. In the 1990s and onward, with PCs, good screens, and the Web, what makes sense is to consider only content, independent of media. A ISBN can not used in a typical database of books as public ID because is not unique (all databases must generate an internal unique ID for this task). For the same reason, the use of ISBN as URN was was not widespread.

This "content-oriented identification" of books' is a repressed demand today (2010's)... So, this kind of non-uniqueness (in a content perspective) is a real and relevant problem.

--Krauss (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: a solution is possible, a TC 46/SC 9's rule that elects one (ex. the first) ISBN to group the others, representing all the "same-content ISBNs"... And a online service that resolves this "unique ISBN", as xISBN do today.

Actually in terms of copyright each translation is copyrighted by the translator (and possibly publisher) and having a book doesn't give you the right to use e-book and vice versa. So ISBN should be unique for each edition (e-book, CD, paper -- all different editions). I said it SHOULD, because there are some cases where it is not (as discussed above). --Nux (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Ops, sorry, here in this subsection we not dissuing translations, only "media/edition" (see above). Usually media/edition changes not change the content... As suggested before, see DOI identified articles (ex. into different medias) to undertand the problem/models/etc. You can also see the Linking ISSN as reference-model to a "unique ISBN". --Krauss (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
About my commented (PS) "solution": see ISSN-L and imagine an ISBN-L. Only imagine, I not discussing here de uniqueness of ISBN (that is necessary for comertial needs, each media is a distinct product), but the necessity and the nowadays-lack of a ISBN-L. --Krauss (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me you are trying to create reality rather then describe it and this is not what Wikipedia is about. We are not researching for solutions. We are describing solutions proven by authorities in appropriate places. See WP:OR. --Nux (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

ISBN-10 check digit calculation

Hi, While I think it's good to have the single formula for calculating the check digit, which uses modular arithmetic, I think this is too complicated and inaccessible for 99% of readers, who won't know what 'mod' and modular arithmetic is, and won't be inclined to find out, just so they can understand this long formula. Which is unfortunate, as finding the check digit is actually quite simple, and doesn't need to use the language of modular arithmetic. Therefore I think an initial explanation along the lines of the following would enable a lot more people to understand this. Other editors' thoughts? Thanks Mmitchell10 (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The value of the check digit is simply the number which needs to be added to the total of the first nine digits, each multiplied by its weight (descending from 10 to 2), so that the total is the next multiple of 11.

For example, for an ISBN-10 of 0-306-40615-?, the total of the first nine digits is:

The next multiple of 11 is 132, therefore the check digit is 2.

My issue with including the above text in this article is that it is just a basic explanation of how to do Modular arithmetic. We already link to that page. Having an explanation of how to do it on this page is contrary to the idea of having a hyper-linked document from which the user can follow links to find explanations of terms which they don't understand.
I agree that the Modular arithmetic article lacks a section with a clear and basic explanation of what it is and how to perform such calculations using ×, ÷, + and -. However, that is an issue for that page. In fact it is a very strong reason to include such an explanation in that article. It is not a reason to include such an explanation in this article unless it is impossible to have a basic explanation of modular arithmetic in the linked article. — Makyen (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I would say that, rather than being an explanation of how to do modular arithmetic, it's an explanation of how to find the check digit without needing to use modular arithmetic. After all, modular arithmetic isn't a necessary part of ISBN calculations or proofs (if memory serves), it's just an alternative/smarter way of handling them. Mmitchell10 (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on International Standard Book Number. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bug in ISBN-13 check digit calculation example

The "ISBN-13 check digit calculation" section includes an example with:

For example, the ISBN-13 check digit of 978-0-306-40615-? is calculated as follows: 

s = 9×1 + 7×3 + 8×1 + 0×3 + 3×1 + 0×3 + 6×1 + 4×3 + 0×1 + 6×3 + 1×1 + 5×3
  =   9 +  21 +   8 +   0 +   3 +   0 +   6 +  12 +   0 +  18 +   1 +  15
  = 93
93 / 10 = 9 remainder 3
10 –  3 = 7

That's fine for 978-0-306-40615-? but if the number had been 978-0-306-40614-? we would have: 

s = 9×1 + 7×3 + 8×1 + 0×3 + 3×1 + 0×3 + 6×1 + 4×3 + 0×1 + 6×3 + 1×1 + 4×3
  =   9 +  21 +   8 +   0 +   3 +   0 +   6 +  12 +   0 +  18 +   1 +  12
  = 90
90 / 10 = 9 remainder 0
10 –  0 = 10

I highlighted the part that changes so that you can see what's different.

The issue is that computed check digit is "10". We need to do another mod 10 on it but I'm not sure of the best way to show this. For example: we could do it all in one line: 

  ...
  = 90
(10 - (90 mod 10)) mod 10 = 0

Or would it be easier to understand if it broken down to more than one line? 

  ...
  = 90
(10 - (90 mod 10)) = 10
10 mod 10 = 0

An issue with the proposed fixed is that in the #ISBN-10 check digit calculation talk section which is above this there's talk about avoiding modular arithmetic in the examples. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Bar Code Explanation

In the second figure there is an explanation to the numbers:

ISBN-10: Group, Publisher, Title, Control digits

ISBN-13: EAN, Group, Publisher, Title, Control digits

But "Title" is misleading. One title can have many ISBNs, and one ISBN can cover a lot of titles in one series.

A better explanation would be "Publication(s)". Benadikt (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Faulty ISBN

There may be better places to ask this question, but I thought I'd start here.

Oliver Harris, The Archbishops' Town: the making of medieval Croydon is a booklet published by the Croydon Natural History and Scientific Society in 2005. It technically forms part of the Society's Proceedings (journal), and has an ISSN, but that's not the point at issue here: it was also published as a stand-alone "book", and so has an ISBN. I have a copy, and the ISBN printed in it (twice) is 0-906047-20-4; and that number appears to have been accepted by at least three library catalogues, including the British Library. The book is cited in at least two wikipedia articles (Croydon and Croydon Minster). However, when I attempt to add the ISBN to the "cite book" template, a "checksum" error message appears. I haven't attempted to check the arithmetic, but I assume that the number was misprinted in the book (the publisher is obviously a small local society, and mistakes do happen). Other publications from the same publisher have the same 0-906047 elements: the error would therefore appear to lie in the final three digits, representing the publication number and check digit. My question, therefore, is: is there some simple way I can work out what the ISBN should be – either from some central database, or by trying to work backwards from the incorrect number I do have? And, if I can establish the correct number, is it a useful detail to aid readers wanting to track the book down, given that it's not what the book itself says? GrindtXX (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@GrindtXX: This is off-topic, as this talk page is intended for discussing improvements to the article International Standard Book Number. A better venue for questions like this would be WT:ISBN. But for your example, if the first 9 digits be unchanged, the check digit should be X, as in ISBN 0-906047-20-X and this is confirmed by Amazon. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That does appear to resolve the issue, and I will add the ISBN in that form. GrindtXX (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Suppressing magic link

I asked about stopping the bot from changing the example ISBNs at meta:User talk:Magic links bot#Suppressing link. GrindtXX has had to revert the bot twice. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Recognition generated

What does "ISBN configuration of recognition was generated in 1967 in the United Kingdom by David Whitaker" mean?203.80.61.102 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Pattern for English language ISBNs

This table is wrong. The English registration group does not have a simple monotonically increasing set of registrants, unlike the Chinese and Japanese registration groups. The English group jumps about – 978-0: 00-19, 200-227, 2280-2289, 229-638, 6390-6398, 6399000-6399999, 640-647, 6480000-6489999, 649-654, 6550-6559, 656-699, 7000-8499, 85000-89999, 900000-949999, 9500000-9999999; 978-1: 00-09, 100-399, 4000-5499, 55000-73199, 7320000-7399999, 74000-77499, 7750000-7753999, 77540-86979, 869800-972999, 9730-9877, 987800-998999, 9990000-9999999 (as of Sep 2017). [1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.isbn-international.org/range_file_generation

As the two English regions have different registrant patterns, it may be simplest to change the example to the Chinese or Japanese registration groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.33.6 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017

The book cited in footnote 6, supposedly by Yaron Svoray and Lawrence Malkin, was never published, so I don't know how you can footnote it. Has anyone actually reada book that does not exist? Lawrence Malkin (author of "Krueger's Men") malkinlit@msn.com 96.246.59.176 (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 00:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@SparklingPessimist: The post was clearly about a footnote, almost certainly in an article, so {{subst:ESp|xy}} was not appropriate - {{subst:ESp|mis}} would have been far better:
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page International Standard Book Number. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Standard Book Number. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Price of registration

I don't think that the price of getting an ISBN number issued in different countries is encyclopedic information. I propose we remove it. --Macrakis (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, as the figures are unlikely to be kept up to date; and also as, with the prices given in different currencies, there's no immediate way of comparing them. However, I think that in cases where countries/territories issue ISBNs free, that information should remain. GrindtXX (talk)

Registration Group Element

I see in multiple places differing descriptions of what this element is. Is it a *language* code, or is it a *country* code? If I want to publish a Chinese-language book in the UK, should it have a Chinese *language* code or a UK *country* code? This needs authoritively clarifying.

Jgharston (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect ISBN-13 check-digit calculation

The calculation:

r = (10 - (sum) mod 10)

fails for ISBN-13 values where the remainder is 0 such as:

  • 978-0-522-86467-0
  • 978-3-598-21549-0
  • 978-3-598-21552-0
  • 978-3-598-21565-0
  • 978-3-598-21578-0
  • 978-3-598-21581-0
  • 978-3-598-21594-0

A change to:

r = (10 - sum) mod 10

works for these cases.

A sample python program is available at:

https://gist.github.com/tonyallan/e8e55bfcf6868641dc323316603b1cb7

with some test data:

https://gist.github.com/tonyallan/2e4cce9f16232eb6517e0eebca0da945

python3 isbn.py < isbn.txt

TonyAllanAU (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I have a couple of small publications where the isbn doesn't checksum, i think it's the auto pre-pend of the 978- where this will fail the checksum. Dave Rave (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019

The conversion from ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 is done by prepending "978" to the *ISBN-10* (now it says that the *ISBN-13* should be prepended which is clearly a typo.) Skarpsill (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

ISBN database

Is there a downloadable database mapping ISBNs to regular book data? I know there are some APIs for it but I'd rather have a local copy. If the data is proprietary, who controls access to it? This info should be in the article. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Linked website can trigger migraines

The linked website, https://www.isbn-international.org/ , is full of flashing and animation and can trigger migraines. A warning may be appropriate. 108.48.77.21 (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The only non-static content that I can discern on that page is the manner in which three static images are displayed:
These are displayed one at a time, with each one fading in as the previous one fades out.
However, Wikipedia has no control over what other websites choose to display; we also don't have the resources to check all of the websites that are linked to. Their content may change at any time, without us being aware. I also refer you to Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The website has a "low bandwidth" option, located in the top right corner, that removes all images from the page.--Auric talk 14:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

nowiki markup

Is ISBN- classed as wiki markup? I've noticed that the source text contains nowiki tags around ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 almost everywhere. For example: 

The calculation of an <nowiki>ISBN-13</nowiki> check digit begins with...

Does anyone know the reason for this? There are a few places where the nowiki tag isn't used, so there is some inconsistency. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: It's because - for the moment at least - ISBN is a magic link; when followed by a sequence of digits, the MediaWiki parser attempts to make it into a link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: thanks for that. Does it also apply to section headings, e.g. the heading "ISBN-10 check digits", etc...? Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

7th edition of ISBN Users' Manual

The ISBN Users' Manual is referred to a number of times in the article, but the edition is inconsistent and out of date. E.g. "ISBN-10 check digits" section refers to the 4th edition (2001), "ISBN-13 check digit calculation" section refers to the 5th edition (2005), and Refs.11, 12, 14, 46 are all pointing to the 6th edition (2012). The latest edition is the 7th edition (published 2017), so this is the one we should be consistently using. Also, if information in the article relies on out-of-date versions of the manual, a bit of fact checking is perhaps needed against the latest edition (although I wouldn't have thought it has changed significantly). Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

There is a mistake under the "ISBN-10 check digits" subsection. In the first paragraph of the subsection, it states that "xi is the ith digit numbered from right to left beginning at 1". In addition, the first paragraph says that each digit's integer weight desecends from 10 to 1. This means that x1 should have an integer weight of 1, x2 having a weight of 2, etc.
However, the third equation under the subsection has the integer weights in the wrong order. It assigns x1 an integer weight of 10, x2 having a weight of 9, etc.
Immediately after the third equation, the article says that assigning the integer weights in ascending order from 1 to 10 also works. Thus, the article assigns x1 a weight of 10, x2 a weight of 9, etc. However, the fifth equation has the weights assigned in the wrong order as well.
To fix this, simply switch the placement of the third equation and the fifth one.
Secondly, the equals sign in the first equation should be changed to the ≡ sign. Prof. Fu (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The second and third equations correspond to the source, and should remain as is. I find the text describing them clear enough--it says that the digit's weight descends from 10 to 1, which I read as descending from left to right, and then introduces the xi nomenclature, which doesn't change this. If you want to propose a change to the text, feel free to do that.
(The reformulation in the fourth and fifth equations seems to be original research, though straightforward enough that I'm okay with leaving it.) Dan Bloch (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with the explanation in the article. I find them clear as well. I am only proposing to fix mistakes that are shown in the first, third, and fifth equations. The third and fifth equations do not correspond to the nomenclatures that are given in the article. The first equation should use the ≡ sign to be consistent with the other equations in the article. Prof. Fu (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done I didn't do exactly what you asked but I think you'll be happy with the change. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Renumbering the digits is actually a better solution. It is less confusing and is more consistent with the original source's numbering of the digits. Thank you for the changes. Prof. Fu (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hyphenation

ISBN number are typically shown hyphenated (except adjacent to the barcode). Is this hyphenated format mandated by The ISBN organisation, or just recommended, or can the numbers be shown non hyphenated? How prevalent are non hyphenated ISBN numbers? If hyphens are placed in the wrong places, does it make any practical difference? Perhaps there should be a section on this topic. FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This is addressed briefly in the Overview section. Do you think this isn't sufficient? Dan Bloch (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi FreeFlow99; the positioning of ISBN hyphens is clearly 'mandated' by the ISBN organisation, in the sense that it is a convention to help humans recognise/identify the constituent elements in the number. Whether they matter for the purpose of processing by machines (computer programs), I have no idea. For the purposes of Wikipedia, the isbn= parameter of the {{Cite book}} template states: "Hyphens in the ISBN are optional, but preferred.". Personally, I always insert them according to the Pattern for English language ISBNs, simply because it looks neater, and in conformance with the way ISBNs are printed on the books themselves. Having said all that, I would be very surprised if leaving them out mattered at all. .
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The hyphens may be freely replaced with spaces, and both are entirely optional: they exist purely to aid human readability. You can run the 13 (or 10) digits together and it doesn't make a scrap of difference to the validity of the ISBN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

please insert in the introduction

The idea of a centralised book numbering system was the idea of the publishers and booksellers WH Smith and of Macmillan who both needed to modernise their stock control systems.

In 1965 while at the LSE, Gordon Foster was commissioned by WH Smith, to develop a computerised filing system as part of the publisher's drive to modernise its growing company. Gordon Foster developed for WH Smith, a 9 digit code which he named the Standard Book Numbering System (SBN). This code was very successful and was rapidly adopted by all UK publishers and booksellers. In 1970, the International Standard Organisation (ISO) expanded the SBN to 10 digits by adding an initial zero and the code was renamed to become the International Book Numbering System: ISBN.

The ISBN was born, and is now used worldwide by all publishers and booksellers.

Padron Whitaker, Director of the family business, the Publishers Association, instructed his son, David Whitaker (in 1967 was 18 years old) to promote the idea of the ISBN via the Publishers Association and liase with the publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.242.108 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also please describe your request more specifically, e.g., "change X to Y", or where you want text to be inserted. Also note that there's already a history section which contains some of this information. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

NCN?

Hi, I recently ran into a 1974 book, first published in 1968, which came with both ISBN and NCN numbers:

Lewin, Douglas (1974) [1968]. Logical Design of Switching Functions (2nd ed.). Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. ISBN 0-17-771044-6. NCN 420-5805-4.

The numbers are given next to each other in the front matter of the book. The NCN is set in the same size and font as the ISBN leading to the assumption that NCN must have been some former book identification system. As I could not find anything about it, does someone have an idea what NCN stands for? Where and when was it used? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that the CN part stands for Card or Catalogue Number, as with LCCN = Library of Congress Card Number (nowadays Library of Congress Control Number). Perhaps the N stands for Nederlandse - see Nederlandse Centrale Catalogus. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I think you could be right on the CN part. N = "Nelson" or "National" was my first guess, but I could not find any hits at all for this so far. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion: Add to external links

Special:BookSources, it's a quick and versatile highly useful tool. --Palosirkka (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Help:ISBN, or not?

An editor removed the hatnote to the Help:ISBN twice ([2][3]). Since this hatnote existed for many years without anyone complaining about it, I thought to bring this up here. Although it is a namespace violation, I'm leaning towards keeping it (as we have similar notes on other pages dealing with (former) mediawiki magic tokens), but I'll leave it to others to decide. Also, IIRC hatnotes are muted in exports, so the reference to Wikipedia would not be visible in "printed" versions, anyway. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

China and video games

It appears that the Chinese government is using the ISBN system for video games, as a unique identifier and as a gatekeeping and licensing mechanism. See also https://www.appinchina.co/blog/how-to-publish-your-game-in-china/. Of particular note:

  • Game Registration Number (GRN / ISBN), which is administered by China’s National Press and Publication Administration (NPPA) – formerly the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT) – after your game has gone through the content approval process. This will be a 13-digit International Standard Book Number (ISBN), used for this purpose. Apple also tends to refer to this as the “game approval number”.

Our article here should make some mention of this. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

First ISBN?

What was the first book published with an ISBN? Or is that buried in the citations somewhere? kencf0618 (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

12-digit SBN - last 3 numbers are the price

Some SBN numbers are have 12 numbers, where the last 3 numbers are the price of the book. We need an explaination of this and maybe some other sources to prove it ("12 digit Standard Book Number").

Evidence that I found currently:

This possibly little-known practice may not have been written about in any books, but it still might be worth checking:

Other talk on SBN in the archives:

--User123o987name (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: looking at the above text I saw that 2 of the 12-digit Standard Book Numbers had the text "SBN 345-" (Ballantine Books apparently). I searched https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22SBN%20345%22&sin=TXT and got 404 results (four hundred and four results), many of which are 12-digit SBNs! Examples (all by Ballantine Books):

  • SBN 345-24676-4-595 - price stated on the front cover $5.95 - https://archive.org/details/westernpaintings00mcca/mode/2up?q=%22SBN+345%22
  • SBN 345-24307-2-495 - price stated on the front cover $4.95 - https://archive.org/details/onloose00ball/mode/2up - On the Loose
  • SBN 345-03331-0-075 - price stated on the front cover $0.75 - https://archive.org/details/madreader00ball/mode/2up
    • prose: a book based on ''Mad'' magazine, [[Mad (magazine)#Reprints|''The Mad Reader'']], had a 12-digit Standard Book Number of 345-03331-0-075 (valid SBN: 03331-0-075, ISBN 10: 0-03331-0-075),<ref>https://archive.org/details/madreader00ball/page/n5/mode/2up?q=345-03331-0-075 - ISBN 0-03331-0-075</ref> and it cost {{USD|0.75}}.<ref>https://archive.org/details/madreader00ball - "75¢"</ref>
  • ''Woodstock Handmade Houses'' had a 12-digit Standard Book Number of 345-24223-8-595 (valid SBN: 345-24223-8, ISBN 10: 0-345-24223-8),<ref>https://archive.org/details/woodstockhandmad00robe/page/n3/mode/2up?q=SBN+345-24223-8-595 - by Ballantine Books, ISBN 0-345-24223-8 links to http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2057258</ref> and it cost {{USD|5.95}}.<ref>https://archive.org/details/woodstockhandmad00robe - "Ballantine/Craft [...] 5.95"</ref>
  • etc.

These are reliable sources which prove my point. --User123o987name (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The SBN system originated in the UK - ISBN was international (hence the I). The above examples all appear to be American books, or at least American editions. Is it possible that the USA had its own SBN system which was different from the UK system? If so, the ISBN system probably harmonised the two. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
No, there are no 12-digit SBNs. SBNs always have 9 digits. ISBNs always have 10 or 13 digits. Let's not call these numbers SBNs, because they are not, and calling them SBNs will cause confusion. There were (and are) many other cataloging or article code schemes, some standardized on country- or international level, some manufacturer-specific. What you described is obviously one of these other schemes.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

Change the 51 years ago to 53 years ago because it's almost the new year. SuperIdolxxxJhongXina (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This will automatically update via a template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2022

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)


International Standard Book Number → ISBN – 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)

  • 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)
  • Support per BarrelProof. Colin M (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)
    @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)
    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)
  • Support per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Oppose - on first introduction (ie page titles and lede sentences), we should lean toward expansion of abbreviations. -- Netoholic @ 04:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    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)
  • Oppose No way. ISBN already redirects to this. This is just pointless. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 14:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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 (talk • contribs) • he/they 18:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)

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)

I'm not aware of anything else that it might stand for. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per BarrelProof's well-reasoned argument. Calidum 18:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    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)
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 neeeded

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Foster — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamWaldman (talk • contribs) 11:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

Update Registrant element section

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 https://grp.isbn-international.org/ RosierFox (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Discussion notice

Interested editors are invited to look at WT:ISBN#Hyphens in ISBNs. – S. Rich (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ISBN/Archive_5&oldid=1219045883"