Talk:ISO 8601

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Time (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Wikipedia dates[edit]

Some people have proposed using ISO 8601 for Wikipedia dates. For more of this discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

It appears that it's rapidly becoming a de facto standard (if not yet de jure) at least for dates in Wikipedia citations.

Y10K[edit]

The Long Now foundation suggests that years should be written with five digits (ie 02003 for the year 2003) in order to avoid the Year 10,000 problem.

This is pointless: all it does is push the problem forward a few years to 100,000, and situation already exists for dates in the past (-10,000 and earlier.) May as well accept that the year number can have a varying number of digits -( 18:57 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Without seeing that I assumed they were serious! Brianjd

ISO 8601 on the Internet Archive[edit]

The Internet Archive hosts a copy of ISO 8601. Would it be a bad idea to link to it? —Bromskloss (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but we shouldn't link to it. Unless we are 100% sure a standard is "free", then we can't link to any copy on the internet, otherwise it can cause legal actions against Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conventional_PCI#OFFICE_actionSbmeirowTalk • 18:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
IMO it would be okay, because we're sure enough that it used to be freely available, because an expert on this and related topics said so. And I normally consider "say so" as bad enough for a "speedy deletion".Face-tongue.svgBe..anyone (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Just because a publication used to be available for free from the publisher does not prevent the publisher from ending the free availability. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not the job of Wikipedia to decide what is or what is not allowed on the Internet Archive. If that is an issue at all it would be between ISO and the Internet Archive. Links to this site are perfectly okay. Copyright owners can change their license for a published work, but they cannot change it retroactively for existing old copies. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Be..anyone wrote "Copyright owners can change their license for a published work, but they cannot change it retroactively for existing old copies." Quite true. But a license to have one copy on paper, one copy on a computer in one's home to read, is a different matter than making a copy on a public website is a different matter because each reader must make a new copy on the reader's computer in order to read the document. Whether the license that allowed a site to make a document publicly available can be revoked or not would depend on the terms of the license. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The copy on archive.org clearly states "© ISO 2004 — All rights reserved". There is nothing that suggests archive.org has permission to republish. I've removed the above link as WP:COPYLINK violation. Glrx (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

ISO 2014[edit]

ISO 2014 is a hopeless stub that could be redirected to ISO 8601#History adding {{printworthy}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Related Standards section[edit]

I am sure that no-one has time to look up every reference in the Related Standards section, but the NIST FIPS PUB 4-2 under the US entry has been withdrawn by NIST in 2008. Link to NIST withdrawn publications listing (item is on page 2 in version of "Update 3/31/14"): http://www.nist.gov/itl/upload/Withdrawn-FIPS-by-Numerical-Order-Index-4.pdf ; Link to the Federal Register detailing it's removal: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-09-02/pdf/E8-20138.pdf . Long story short, NIST related in the FR (referring to a group of withdrawn PUBs) that their standard in PUB 4-2 was based on published voluntary industry standards, and was thus redundant to publish as a voluntary standard in official NIST documents. The ANSI standard referred to in the US line item, ANSI INCITS 30-1997 - which was also referred to in the withdrawn NIST PUB - is available from the ANSI website for a fee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.150.161 (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)