Talk:List of International Organization for Standardization standards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Engineering (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

ISO vs ISO/IEC[edit]

Some of the standards are shown as "ISO nnnn", when they are actually "ISO/IEC nnnn". Examples are 7810, 7812, 7816, 14443. This list page and all of the specific pages about those standards, eg ISO_7816, should be updated accordingly. ISO's catalog can be used to verify the precise designation and name of each standard. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed 7816, 14443, but there are others remaining (some of which I may fix in future). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical order[edit]

Is it fair to list these numbers in alphabetical order? Anyone who knows the ISO number they are looking for, this place is great. Anyone who wants to find the ISO standard for an items manuacture... they will possibly look elswhere first to find the appropriate number. Most categories are numbered at random like film shutter speeds, IT, and other stuff. ~ R.T.G 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ISO 10688[edit]

I read on the newspaper that ISO 10.688 is under development, and it's for determining how much is a trademark worth [1] (spanish). However, when I search at the ISO website I only getPaper, board and pulps -- Basic equations for optical properties, anyone know anything about this new standard? --Enric Naval (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A topic of...[edit]

List of ISO divisions is added for clearification, as Food microbiology is not covered by Food technology but by another division

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_ics_browse.htm?ICS1=7&ICS2=100&ICS3=30

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_ics_browse.htm?ICS1=67

Does anyone know what the rationale is behind this categorization? --222.64.219.44 (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This kind of cases is amusing me ~__~--222.64.219.44 (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know what.....[edit]

ISO/TR means???

Example of it is ISO/TR 211 http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?ics1=71&ics2=100&ics3=60&csnumber=4081 --222.67.206.40 (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical Report Mitch Ames (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ISO 1750...???[edit]

True or false...??? http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=6370 --222.64.218.194 (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=ISO+1750&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en

Little commentary available from academics--222.64.218.194 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a current standard per your first link. Wizard191 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A topic of ....[edit]

ISO 704 has been created based on the following....

Why isn't there any English hyper links for this standard from Google Scholar...???--222.64.222.139 (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Same problem for ISO 860....[edit]

No any formal or academic reviews/commentaries available since 1996, using Google Scholar

--222.64.222.139 (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this a problem of Google Scholar coverage, or the one of ISO's...??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.222.139 (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why ISO 10164 is not listed here...???[edit]

Such an important standard which affects all internet and websites have not been listed by wikipedia, is unusual.--222.64.21.59 (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please create the article...???

The standard part 19 doesn't have an abstract....why...??? http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=25026&ICS1=35&ICS2=100&ICS3=70 --222.64.21.59 (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The other parts which do not have abstracts are

--222.64.21.59 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

--222.64.21.59 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

--222.64.21.59 (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

--222.64.21.59 (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

--222.64.21.59 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic/scientific infos about the standard http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ISO%2FIEC+10164&btnG=Search --222.64.21.59 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

ISO/IEC 9834....[edit]

Academic/scientific infos about the standard http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ISO%2FIEC+9834&btnG=Search --222.64.21.59 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I reckon ISO/IEC 9594 is mismanaged....[edit]

See the status of the parts

the revision in 2005 is not indicated in the title if the previous version has not be withdrawn --222.64.21.59 (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not using the format of

  • ISO/IEC 9594-5:2001/Cor 1:2008
  • ISO/IEC 9594-5:2005/Cor 1:2008

at http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=43795&ICS1=35&ICS2=100&ICS3=70
...??? --222.64.21.59 (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Info from Google scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=allintitle:+ISO/IEC+9594&hl=en --222.64.21.59 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Call for reviewing of....[edit]

ISO 4892 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=ISO+4892&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en --222.67.216.49 (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not easy to set a specification which can work for both Nosocomial infection control and Anger management ...^___^--222.67.216.49 (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a list of ISO standards that are discussed in Wikipedia articles?[edit]

Resolved

The first sentence of the article is "This is a list of ISO standards that are discussed in Wikipedia articles", but there are many standards listed that do not have articles (for some or all parts), and in some cases not even wp:red links. Should we change the first sentence to delete the words "that are discussed in Wikipedia articles"? I think not, because the complete and unconditional list would be:

  • much harder to maintain, and
  • probably unnecessary, when one can get the information from the ISO catalogue, as mentioned in the second sentence of the article.

This implies that we should delete all of the items on this page that do not have articles (for at least one part of a multi-part standard). If we did this, it would be wise to put a WP:COMMENT into the article source saying something like "as per the first sentence, don't add entries unless there is an existing article". Does anyone have any comments of suggestions? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

While I understand your point that it would be hard to maintain a full list of ISO standards, the link provided doesn't actually provide that list, therefore I would rather see an attempt at a full list of ISO standards. As such, I would recommend just deleting the "that are discussed in Wikipedia articles" portion of the sentence. Wizard191 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It is possible to get a full list from ISO (split over multiple pages) by using advanced search entering a number range of 1:999999 (or any other sufficiently large number) as per the help page, and sorting by ISO number. Admittedly it is not obvious, nor does it appear to be possible create a single link that will do it. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If we decide to make this article include all standards, not just those on which we have an article, we should probably put the {{Dynamic list}} template at the top. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yup, that would definitely apply here. Wizard191 (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I've update the article intro, so it is no longer limited to standards for which we have articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Sweet thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we add the year designation in each case?[edit]

Some entries list the year that the standard was published (effectively the version), eg "ISO 226:2003", while others do not. I wonder if we should strive to be consistent throughout the article. In that case, should we include the year always, or never? In many cases, the year is unnecessary detail, which the reader can get from the ISO Catalogue if required. Our list generally only has the latest version, so the year isn't necessary to distinguish between multiple otherwise identical entries. However, there is some merit in adding the year, because:

  • The year is normally included in the complete reference number of the standard, and should be specified if formally referring to a standard so as to state which version was used.
    (Strictly speaking, one ought to include the language in at least some cases. Eg the English version of 9797-1 lists its "reference number" on the cover page as "ISO/IEC-1:1999(E)" - but that's probably be a bit too pendantic for our purposes.)
  • The names of some standards or parts thereof change from one version to another. Eg
    • 7816-3:1997(E) Information technology — Identification cards — Integrated circuit(s) cards with contacts — Part 3: Electronic signals and transmission protocols
    • 7816-3:2006(E) Identification cards — Integrated circuit cards — Part 3: Cards with contacts — Electrical interface and transmission protocols

Does anyone else have any thoughts on whether we should consistently include (or not) the year? If we do have a consensus as to a consistent rule, where to declare that rule for would-be editors? Perhaps a comment at the top of the page - but it's a long page, and people might only edit a section. Would we want the comment at the start of each section? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely someone must have an opinion on the matter ... Mitch Ames (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I recommend always having the most resent edition always designated. Zginder 2013-12-18T19:04:13Z

Please use the correct name for the standard[edit]

A general request to all editors:

When adding or editing entries in the list, please use the correct name (including capitalisation) as listed on the standard itself and/or the ISO Catalogue (which you can search by standard number). Don't assume that the title shown in any book, magazine, website or other secondary source is correct, regardless of how reputable that source is. I know from personal experience that references to standards' names are often incorrect - please check the name on the standard itself, or the catalog. (At first glance, this may appear to violate WP:SECONDARY, but the policy does allow for use, with care, of primary sources that have been reliably published. Usage for this article is limited to copying the correct name - no interpretation required - so it complies with the policy. The ISO catalog is a secondary source.) Thanks, Mitch Ames (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

References - ISO catalog[edit]

The article currently includes 20 references (on 20 standards), each of which is the relevant page of the ISO catalogue. It is self-evident that one could cite a similar reference for most - probably all - of the standards listed in the article. To my mind this would be ridiculous. I propose that we should:

  • Delete the current individual references to individual ISO catalogue pages.
  • Move the "ISO catalogue search page" entry from its current location under External links up to the References section, and change it from the search page to the catalogue home page (which includes a search box).

Does anyone have any objections, or alternative suggestions? Mitch Ames (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that deleting the references is useful. Although they are relatively easy to find, there is no disadvantage in leaving them here. Lmatt (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Mitch, I agree with you. The single line refs either should be expanded to every bullet point or removed, and I think its just pointless to supply a ref for each one, when a blanket ref can be supplied. Wizard191 (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The main "disadvantage" of the individual references is unnecessary clutter.
On the other hand, if we could convince every editor to check the catalogue when adding/editing entries, maybe we'd get the names correct a bit more often! Sadly I can't see that happening. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this recent edit is an improvement. 33 entries under References that all show "ISO.org"! I think we need a discussion here to try to get some consensus about how we manage the references. As previously stated, my preference is that we

  • Delete the current individual references to individual ISO catalogue pages.
  • Move the "ISO catalogue search page" entry from its current location under External links up to the References section, and change it from the search page to the catalogue home page (which includes a search box).

Does anyone else approve of this? Does anyone care to present any alternatives, which we could "vote" on? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad it has been noticed this list (if continued as it is) will be nearly endless. 1 link to the ISO website would, in my opinion be the most logical solution. Lotje ツ (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've removed the individual references.

Remove withdrawn standards from the list[edit]

Yes check.svg done. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we should remove withdrawn standards from the list, unless Wikipedia has an article about the standard itself (not just an article about the topic). Eg I would delete ISO 13, but keep ISO 128. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I shall start removing withdrawn standards from the list, unless we actually have an article about the standard itself ... Mitch Ames (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to remove some links[edit]

I proposed removing some of the links from standard numbers in this article, where we appear unlikely to have specific articles written with the standard number as title because, for example:

  • Red links and redirects where we have an existing article (linked from the list) about the topic or standard (usually which mentions the standard number, so a search would find it), but with a name other than the standard number, eg
  • Individual parts where we have an article on the standard as a whole, and there is no obvious reason why we should split that article up, per part. Eg remove the links from the individual parts of 8583:
  • ISO 8583 Financial transaction card originated messages — Interchange message specifications
    • ISO 8583-1 Messages, data elements and code values
    • ISO 8583-2 Application and registration procedures for Institution Identification Codes (IIC)
    • ISO 8583-3 Maintenance procedures for messages, data elements and code values

Note that this proposal is to remove the links only, not the entries. Does anybody have an objections, suggestions etc? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

... proposal is to remove the links only, not the entries - except as per new sub-section below. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of any objections, I have started removing some of the unlikely and/or redundant links. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove entries for part in some cases?[edit]

I'm considering removing entries for standard parts, ie -1, -2 etc unless there as specific articles for those parts. Although the parts are separate documents, released (and sometimes dated, and even named), and purchased separately, I'm not sure that there's merit in listing them individually in most cases. Does anyone else have any thought on the matter? Mitch Ames (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

5218 -- ISO vs ISO/IEC[edit]

Alkari changed 5218's link target from "ISO/IEC 5218" to "ISO 5218", because the former was, at the time, a red link. Fair enough. I reverted to the original ISO/IEC target, having first renamed the target article from ISO ... to ISO/IEC - the latter being the correct designation. Alkari then reverted my change, presumably in the belief that the target article had not been renamed. So I have changed it back again. My original comment "Fix article title instead" was brief and I probably should have said explicitly "I have fixed the target" - but perhaps Alkari should have checked before reverting. Or maybe there is a problem with my article move. It appears to be all OK to me - no redlink on the "list of ISO standards" page - but Alkari, could you please check that it looks OK to you. You may need to clear the cache on your PC - I have seen a similar problem before, whereby an old cached version "hid" a similar fix. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I hadn't realized that the page had been moved already – and I should probably have looked before reverting your edit. My apologies. Everything looks OK now as far as I can tell. Alkari (?), 25 October 2011, 19:37 UTC

Removed count of standards available[edit]

I've deleted the total number of standards available, because that search finds not just individual standards, but also Guides, Recommendations etc. I could tweak the advanced parameters, to try to get the correct number (Document type = International Standard, Supplement type = None, returns 16079), but I'm not sure that I've got it correct. The actual number isn't very important to the article, so it's probably better to leave it our, rather than have it wrong. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Article title - standards and others?[edit]

The article title is "List of ISO standardss", but the first sentence says "list of ... standards and other deliverables" - "other deliverables" including "specifications" (ISO/PAS, ISO/TS), "reports" (ISO/TR), etc, per footnote 2.

Should we rename the article to include these other deliverables? What might a suitable title be?

  • "... standards and other deliverables" seems to wordy.
  • "... deliverables" seems a bit to vague.

Or should we stick to "standards" on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME even if it is not technically correct? Mitch Ames (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn standards, 2013[edit]

I notice the recent addition of quite a few "withdrawn" standards, despite the lead section saying that "This is a list of current published ... standards...".

I raised the matter of withdrawn standards in 2011 (#Remove withdrawn standards from the list, above), and removed them because nobody objected. I still think that we should limit the list to current standards, unless there is a Wikipedia article. Do we want to discuss the matter again? In particular, Zginder, is there a particular reason for including the withdrawn standards? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)