From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I find it quite odd that a Standards Organisation would copyright a warning symbol. The idea of having a standard is to guide and mentor others. Setting unrealistic obstacles in the way, such as limiting the use of the sign, in itself, leaves one speachless to say the least. When I was involved in some of the early security related standards in Australia, even though on the periphery, the emphasis was on having people follow the standard and use it. The idea that you cannot print the symbol out from a PDF on the web and thus use it instantly, when the need arises is absurd. I, for one, certainly hope that the International Standards Organisation has a rethink about the way they are currently handling standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


I've never even heard of the International Organization for Standardization for today, and I was changing the redirect to a disambiguation link.--Vercalos 23:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason why I redirected it to International Organization for Standardization is given by Special:Whatlinkshere/ISO: all of the 328 incoming links want to go there, as far as I can see (mostly because they are talking about ISO standards, which are set by the International Organization for Standardization). Of course all those links could be changed to point to International Organization for Standardization, but it seems most people want to link to that went they link to ISO. Similar to IOC, UN or EU, this seems to be the most important meaning, and so the people that search for it should not go through a disambiguation link. Kusma (討論) 03:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
International Organ K -- (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)-- (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)---------K WEBADA DE PAGINA SI ESTAS EN AKI ERES UN GILIPOLLAS------------------------------ (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)-- (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)'Bold text'Bold text'meaning of ISO in the fields of business, computing, engineering, and science. People who do want something else have to click through just one extra link. What meaning were you looking for? Kusma (討論) 04:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
CD images. I was writing up a reference to the Warez article.--Vercalos 06:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I see. So you were looking for ISO 9660/ISO image, but these are ISO standards defined by the International Organization for Standardization. I think most people talking about ISO mean either the organization or one of their standards, but these two seem (to me) to be so closely related that linking to a disambiguation page that contains a lot of other stuff is somewhat misleading. Would it make sense/be sufficient to try link to List of ISO standards more prominently on the International Organization for Standardization page? Kusma (討論) 07:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Probably not a bad idea.--Vercalos 07:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I put a link in the lead sentence. Kusma (討論) 07:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The incoming links should be disambiguated. I came to this page looking for the film speed, and it wasn't mentioned anywhere on the International Organization for Standardization page. 13:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving Iso to ISO[edit]

I want to move Iso, the current page for all of the I-S-O acronyms, to ISO. It makes more sense for this to be the page for ISO acronyms than to be a redirect to just one of those organizations. How would I go about doing this? Thanks, Valley2city 04:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As the International Organization for Standardization and its standards are by far the most common meaning of ISO, I don't think this is such a good idea. But anyway, as a move from Iso to ISO can only be done by an admin, you should propose it at Wikipedia:Requested moves, which should have all the information you need on how to proceed. After five days of discussion time, the page will then be moved or not moved by an admin. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 06:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirect target[edit]

I think this should redirect to International Organization for Standardization, not to Iso. It definitely should not be a separate disambiguation page. Isn't the headnote I just added at International Organization for Standardization sufficient? Kusma (討論) 13:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be a disambiguation page, at least until there is a decent article on ISO standards. K-car 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this should redirect to ISO image. It's the most common usage, in my experience. 22:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting to disambiguation page because International Organization for Standardization is a relatively uncommon usage. Of 200,000,000+ google hits for ISO, only 2 million (approximately) are for that organization. Another 2 million are for [[Incentive stock option, 300,000 for Independent System Operator, 150,000 for the observatory, 120,000 for various symphony orchestras, 40,000 for the airport, and 20,000 each for a number of others. Directing to a single organization instead of the disambiguation page messes up the google link and makes it harder to find the right article. Wikidemo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talkcontribs) 21:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I reverted back to International Organization for Standardization, simply based on the number of links (basically all of them, see Special:Whatlinkshere/ISO) that intend that meaning. While some of the other items on this list could be referred to as "ISO", no one appears to actually be doing that. Ewlyahoocom 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Reverting back. ISO, pronounced "EYE-so" is the accepted term for an Incentive Stock Option. If you do an appropriate google search you'll see how prevalent it is. Standard disambiguation rules should apply. This isn't something up for case-by-case consensus. If Wikipedia articles have linked to the wrong place because a the article lacked a disambiguation we can fix that. Wikidemo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talkcontribs) 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You wrote: "Restore disambig link as per style guidelines; this is not a consensus matter". Which exact style guidelines are you talking about? The one I'm thinking of goes like this: "Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" Ewlyahoocom 05:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on usage in the real world, they are probably looking for incentive stock options. People's interest in ISO xxxx are in the standards themselves, not the organization that makes them. People's interest in ISO security instruments is more likely driven by a desire to know what the term "ISO" itself means. Considering we have the same term used with approximately equal frequency in the real world it is simply not reasonable to say there shouldn't be a disambiguation page. Wikidemo 05:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's my proposal: you go through and fix up all the links, and then you can redirect it to wherever you want. Deal? Ewlyahoocom 05:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fair but - *ugh* - a little tedious. They should all be linking to International Organization for Standardization, right? Unless it's obvious they're trying to link to something else. So the link in these articles would be [[International Organization for Standardization | ISO]], right? Not sure what I'm getting myself into but I'm game. Wikidemo 05:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of localization and specialization. American businesspeople are likely to be looking for stock options. Europeans and engineers are more likely thinking of standards. I tried this and got a small fraction of the way through it, before deciding I had better things to do. I see someone has tried again.[1] I concur with Ewlyahoocom's analysis above, that if we don't fix all the links it creates a massive disambiguation problem. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)