The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.
The barcode does seem to be the primary topic, over an archaic 7th century term that vanished in 1066. If bookland is needed for a dis page, for example if the British Columbia bookstore of that name suddenly becomes as big as Barnes and Nobles, some other names that could be used are Bookland (EAN), Bookland (ISBN) or Bookland barcode. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment it's not a fictional location, it's an organizational hack using a ficticious country code. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Ummm... you read the article, right? It's a special code configuration assigning books to a corresponding fictional location on the globe... and for... please read Fictional location:second sentence again. *sigh*
I think what they meant by not a fictional location, is that there is no description of bookland, other than the vague "that's where books come from". Normally with a fictional location there is a very rich description of the fictional location, like middle earth, or in the Harry Potter books. So in that sense, no it is not a fictional location, it is a fictitious location. And yes it is certainly a hack to make the system work. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
"Musicland" is a similar concept to Bookland, for the transcoding of ISMN10 sheet music id number into ISMN13 EAN prefix 979 (note this prefix is shared with ISBN, the "M" in the ISMN transcodes as 0, and the checkdigit remains the same because ISMN uses the GS1 algortihm. Hence 9790 is sheet music.) New ISMN prefixes will be issued as ISMN13 as of mid 2008 http://ismn-international.org/download/GuidelinesGeneral.pdf—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Uninvolved admin determined there was no consensus to merge to EAN. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm pretty annoyed by everyone here. Can we please discuss the merger rather than just edit war over it? An article which was just kept at AfD really shouldn't be merged without some form of discussion. We take it as granted that this article meets notability requirements--thus the keep. Let's move forward and see why this should be merged. I certainly believe that as it stands the merge target has way too much on this topic in proportion to its importance to the topic. A sentence or 3 would be plenty. I also don't see the reason to merge this. It is, in my opinion, an interesting topic that certainly has plenty of coverage and real-world relevance. So, why merge? Hobit (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, would everyone (and that includes Sarek who I generally find very levelheaded) please read WP:BRD before proceeding here? Hobit (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you the person who carried out the eighth revert on the article yesterday? I think so. So cut out the moralistic crap. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 05:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you the person who merged without discussion and then reverted twice to their preferred version? What was that about moralizing again? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
<ec>I responded on your talk page, I'll respond here. WP:BRD makes it pretty plain when making a bold change that once reverted you should discuss rather than re-revert. The net effect is that after a bold change gets reverted we should end up with a discussion and the previous status quo until the discussion resolves otherwise. That is what my revert, and starting this discussion, did. You should have started this discussion rather than reverting CW rather than making some 3rd party (me) do it for you. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a yes or no question: did you make the 8th revert on this page as part of a content dispute in which you were involved? If it's yes, then you are in no business to be "pretty annoyed" by the reverts of others. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Merge - Bookland only has relevance within the context of the EAN, so it should probably be dealt with in that article. (Also, I've added the appropriate discussion tags to both articles.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't Merge <ec> In response to TT, it's not even vaguely boarderline. Per the GNG it's well over the line (see the AfD and DRV). For another, merging it in whole to where you did really provides undue weight to the EAN article. And I think the bookland improves the encyclopedia. Call it "I like it" or "it's useful" if you wish, but both are fair reasons to keep around a notable topic. That essay is about notability discussions, and notability isn't an issue here. Hobit (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Procedural note—the above editor has !voted twice, and the above bolding appears to be done largely to mask this fact. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 17:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Procedural noteUser:TreasuryTag has repeatedly misrepresented the facts in an uncivil and disruptive way during the now long history of this matter. Quite why he has gone tilt is beyond me but, now he is attacking Hobit, it needs to be said. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't Merge In addition to the undue weight issues raised above, the notability of Bookland as an unusually real fictional country is independent of its relative notability within the EAN standard. In fact, the fictional country article for years has linked Bookland as an exemplar of how a fictional country might be created to satisfy technical requirements in the real world. - Morinao (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it safe to say at this point that there is no consensus for a merge? Hobit (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't. The discussion has only been open about a week. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 14:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
How long is long enough in your opinion? AfDs are 10 days I believe, seems like about the right length for a merge discussion if things have pretty much settled down. Your thoughts? Hobit (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Help:Merging doesn't provide any clear guidance. AfDs run for 7 days, RfCs for 30. 14 days would probably be good here... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I don't know why I was thinking AfDs went from 7 to 10 days, it was 5 to 7. Ah well. Hobit (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Removed the merge suggestions etc. based on discussion above. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Well at least the tags were removed by someone who wasn't involved. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 17:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Happy to help! Hobit (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.