Talk:International Standard Book Number

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019[edit]

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)

 DoneJonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

ISBN database[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)