Category talk:Articles with invalid ISBNs/Archive 2

message: Just a note, be careful when removing the "Please check ISBN" tag, not to remove to many close brackets at the end, if it's nested in another template! Nearly under 1000! Rich Farmbrough, 23:58 18  January 2007 (GMT).
:I have wondered about that.  I have followed the word string back, trying to ensure just this point and found that it didn't take when I closed out the page.  In many cases the word string never used a bracket at the beginning of the string.  It should be no different then a math formula string but I have found it a bit puzzling. Am I not going back far enough? Ekotkie 08:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Be careful

message: (I removed this from my Talk page and put it here as part of the experiment in not breaking up discussions. -EdJ)
Hello Droll! How would you feel about deleting the bad ISBN from this article? I don't want to do anything if you want to study it further. Since OCLC doesn't show an ISBN, I figure they realize it's bad. Also since it's pre-1966 it may not have a real ISBN anyway. National Library of Canada says it has LCCN 60-9741 if you think it would be helpful to add that fact. EdJohnston 02:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy if you deleted it.  I just left the note so that the next editor to check would know that he was not the first to try to find a valid ISBN. I read someones opinion somewhere that the first editor shouldn't do the deletion although I have deleted some on first site if they where to short to even resemble and ISBN after a conscientious  search for a valid one. My personal feeling is that no data is better than bad data but that a good faith effort should be make to find valid data. --Droll 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mazo de la Roche]]  

message: Can someone tell me what I'm missing here? Ekotkie 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs at the bottom of the article which made it show up in this category. I removed the category and now it should be OK. I checked the only ISBN on the page. --Droll 08:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nutrition and pregnancy

message: See my suggestion for how to fix this at . EdJohnston 04:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, this is fine. Now that the "list" version of ISBNs that need checking is done, I'll be more present here when working on ISBNs. Keesiewonder talk 10:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mughatil ibn Bakri]] 

message: Hi, there has been discussion on a number of pages about invalid ISBNs that are published, and whether to show, hide or remove them.  Usually in these cases, the MARC records include the invalid ISBN (tagged as invalid), so the ISBN is valid for the purposes of searching for a book in most libraries.  Oft OCLCs are being used as replacements for Invalid ISBNs, but to my knowledge MARC records do not list OCLCs, limiting their usefulness.  To resolve this, and so that we dont loose too much information in the "Invalid ISBN Cleanup 2007", I would like to propose that where it is obvious, these ISBNs are retained using , and we work out how to deal with these separately.  My apologies in advance if this approach has already been rejected. John Vandenberg 08:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this.  Checksum invalid (but published) ISBNs are how we find books in actual libraries. Cleduc 09:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a fine suggestion ... as long as it is not over or prematurely used. Thanks for implementing a solution for all of us! Keesiewonder talk 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listed Invalid ISBNs 

message: This page is now at 41 Kb. Does anyone object if I create a Talk archive? My idea is to archive old threads by subject. I would put the published invalid ISBNs in their own archive file, for instance. See User_talk:Keesiewonder#Archives for an example of archiving by topic. EdJohnston 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No objections from ... Actually, while I don't object, maybe you could wait a bit, giving me a chance to work down the notes in this list before they migrate off to their own talk page? Like I'm finding some 'No ISBN Available' notes in the article that I'd like to switch to OCLC if possible. Just my two cents ... I'll follow your lead. Keesiewonder talk 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ok, EdJ ... I'm all caught up with what I wanted to do with this page. So, whenever John's ready, I'd say go for it. Keesiewonder talk 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also prefer a few days to work through this talk page.  If we all make sure we start new discussions where possible, we can archive the top half as-is once everyone has finished with the old entries. John Vandenberg 00:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films and see how their archives are handled. If we do it that way there is no need to wait as access to the archive will be very simple. --Droll 01:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: btw, I'm happy for the archiving to go ahead now. John Vandenberg 23:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the popular demand, I did the archiving. Very gracefully done, as you can see from all the fixups of the links. This is not an archive by topic, I just cut off the top part of the file and archived it. Note the elegant archive box at upper right of the page. EdJohnston 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving? 

message: The article Tottenham Hotspur F.C. is fully protected and includes 2 invalid ISBNs.
This citation:
*
should read:
*
and the citation:
*
should read:
*
Thanks. --Droll 08:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article appeared to be only semi-protected when I stopped by, so I inserted your findings listed above. Keesiewonder talk 09:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I guess I wasn't logged on --Droll 12:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin needed 

message: FYI, there is a world of difference between placing HTML tags in their persnickety way, and not. I just  identified a previously elusive ISBN ... and the visible article grew after my correction. If you want to place html code, it absolutely must start and end with the characters as shown:
:::
For reasons I cannot quite explain, if the HTML is instead like this
:::
replies: text: Each of us who has been using hidden text should consider going through our contribution history to see if more cases like this could have happened.  It is likely that every such page would still be in the Category, so that should help. EdJohnston 15:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What am I missing here?  I just took the above, "bad statement" and dropped it into the ref. section of one of our invalids that are here and saved the page, and reloaded the page to ensure that it took and the statement remained hidden.....Am I being thick headed this morning?  I know I need some coffee which I will go make now while someone explains this. Ekotkie 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to explain. Try looking at this link, and scroll down to the bottom to see the last lines of text displayed in the article to the reader. Now try looking at this other link. At least on my computer, the second one has lots of references and external links that the first one has in its code but does not allow to display. Keesiewonder talk 16:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see says the blind man.  It is when I placed the "EdK" up against the ">" in lieu of "EdK-->" (I think this is what he is saying and may be the cause.....sigh.  OK   Ekotkie 16:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: She...she....she...so much easier to type he....I don't think it is an issue any longer.  The err'ed ones are in Cat Invalid and I just looked through the ones I left and "someone" nicely changed the ones I had left pending.  Ekotkie 17:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hidden HTML text -- Please be very careful

message: Just my perspective on how I work on ISBNs ...
*I find it silly to try to stay out of each other's way when fixing ISBNs. This is a wiki environment, after all, where anyone can edit and is encouraged to do so boldly. There are good instructions that pop on the screen for moments when we may get in to edit wars with one another.
*I don't post here when I complete a certain letter since it seems easy to see what articles remain in the category.
*I do appreciate the html tags so I can see whether when I start work on a problematic ISBN, I can tell if it is a new check or one that someone else has already fought with. 
*Posting problematic scenarios here seems like a great idea; it'd give all the ISBN editors plus whomever is concerned about the proposed changes to a particular article a centralized place to work matters out. Of course, another good place is the talk page for the article with the ISBN in question.
Keesiewonder talk 11:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Thoughts 

message: This may be an AfD or even a speedy delete candidate. Please see Talk:Mens Sana Research Foundation. Keesiewonder talk 15:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've removed the ISBNs tagged in error since this really is a journal (with a valid ISSN). I'd leave a note about my AfD idea on the article creator's talk page, but, their last edit was October 13, 2006. Keesiewonder talk 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that this should be a candidate for deletion (WP:NOT a directory). I even wondered about Midnight House which looks like a publisher's catalog, but should be keepable because we have articles on many of the listed authors. This is not the case at Mens Sana Research Foundation. EdJohnston 16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok; done; it is the first AfD I've listed ... hope I didn't screw something up ... Keesiewonder talk 16:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mens Sana Research Foundation]] 

message: Hi, I just ran into http://openlibrary.org, and thought others here may be interested.  WP contributors are starting to use this resource with 5 hits.  The site is part of Internet Archive and a member of Open Content Alliance . The books appears to be identifiable by (either or one of?) two schemes: number and  adhoc names.  Any clue what the number "117770257" is?  Here is an  for the book; havent checked which edition it is. John Vandenberg 23:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wouldn't Google hits be better represented by a search like this? Keesiewonder talk 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *My apologies; I shouldn't have said "ghits", as I was showing how frequently openlibrary.org is being used on Wikipedia.  Here is a better search for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=openlibrary.org . John Vandenberg 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Internet Archive#Open Library|Open Library]] 

message: One tagged ISBN is for this entry:
* New Upanishad: Structure and Cognition of the Absolute 
(1999) ISBN 5-89455-005-1
The web site displays the ISBN cited as invalid ... but I have to admit this feels like a very unofficial, even self published, translation. But, I could use the Listed Invalid ISBN tag, and go with what is on the web site. I also found  or , but the latter seems to be a slightly different book ... even to someone who doesn't read Russian ... Keesiewonder talk 00:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't look like a printed book, it's more like a blog posting. It would be a 'type 3' reference in my proposed system, quite a low grade. I wouldn't suggest using  when the reference is of such minimal quality and there is no library which associates that ISBN to a book that they  hold. If somebody *referred* to that book in a peer-reviewed source, the situation would be different. Also would be different if the book were in Worldcat. Remember that the WP editor who created the article may have done nothing more than look at the web site, and he or she may have no other evidence that the book exists. When things don't turn up in printed sources, or in libraries, it may be for a reason.  EdJohnston 03:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a brutal POV edit on this article. It seemed very self promoting to me and make unverifiable claims. I just checked the article's history and a lot of reference information was added by user:Spiritualheart. Spiritual Heart. The Religion of Unity is one of the books listed in the bibliography. It seems like it might be a candidate for deletion. --DRoll 03:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I sympathize with your view. There is a wikilink to an article on the same topic on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, and that version seems to be nominated for deletion. (There's a little garbage can with a question mark on it, and a  template at the top). EdJohnston 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that input. I'm hesitant to go so far as an AfD in the English WP since several works do indeed show up in WorldCat (not all at this link are V.V.A.'s, but many are). Perhaps the ones that are "unpublished" English translations are, for now, the only ones that should go. Keesiewonder talk 12:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. -- I wouldn't describe those edits as brutal POV, though. Read the talk page of something like New Antisemitism or Global Warming for discussions about more brutal POV edits than yours! ;-) Keesiewonder talk 12:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vladimir Antonov (scientist)]]

message: Rich, I saw two more events today where the bot chopped into an ISBN.  In one case it moved a correct check digit to the far right and in the other it split the isbn in half.  In the later case the isbn was bad, but all the same, it got chopped. Ekotkie 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smackbot chopping

message: Please remember to use the OCLC and ASIN tags if you cite those catalog numbers. I just fixed two articles that were converted recently that attempted to have the linking work by issuing this
OCLC: 25048682 when it should be  which yields .
Keesiewonder talk 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OCLC and ASIN have tags for wikilinks

message: Today I ran across an ISBN starting 9996 and another starting 9999. I found one at amazon.com and the other at amazon.co.uk.  isbn.com doesn't seem to think they're valid. I marked them as . One was in Shane and Sia Barbi and the other in South Carolina --DRoll 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest you consider removing these ISBNs. They correspond to no region code or publisher code, and those ISBNs are not found in any libraries that were checked. They seem to be purely made-up numbers, since there is no chance they were officially issued. Some time back we came across made-up ISBNs beginning with 6, used on non-book items. EdJohnston 19:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN starting 9996 and 9999 

message: These seem pretty useless to me ... What do you think?
Spriggan (list of ISBNs)
Unpopular Books
Keesiewonder talk 11:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of these technically violate WP:NOT. The first I might cut some slack for, since it is a fan product not a publisher catalog, and these books might not be easy to locate. The second is technically a publisher catalog. An AfD is more likely to succeed with the second, I imagine. EdJohnston 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also The Cambridge Edition of the Letters and Works of D H Lawrence. Keesiewonder talk 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I fixed the ISBNs. But someone who has the patience should rewrite this article with just a couple of links into the Cambridge U.P. web site and remove all the individual books. Cambridge provides all the same information, nicely formatted, on their own site. (Unusual since publishers' sites are typically so unhelpful). EdJohnston 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I just noticed that Unpopular Books survived an AfD September 20, 2006. So, I guess I'll just opt for fixing ISBNs in both Unpopular Books and Spriggan (list of ISBNs). Thanks for the corrections in the D.H. Lawrence one. Keesiewonder talk 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
2
3 more AfDs per [[WP:NOT#DIRECTORY]]?

message: There's one problematic ISBN on this article's page and so far, neither Droll nor I have been able to find it. I've just left a couple messages on the article's talk page and on the talk page of the user who added the book. Any other thoughts? Keesiewonder talk 11:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read through the user's talk page and went through the user's contributions. Taking what I found and the title given for the book it seems reasonable to assume that the book does not exist. I will remove the reference. --DRoll 14:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent; that was kind-of my thought too but I wasn't bold enough to implement it. Thanks for taking care of it! Keesiewonder talk 16:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Roy Keane]] 

message: The books in the bibliography, all with invalid ISBNs, are not even mentioned on Kessler's "official" web site ... ? ... I expect these are all self-published materials. Thoughts? Keesiewonder talk 11:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I spent a good amount of time trying to find reference to these as I am sure you have.  I suggest the bibliography be removed. --DRoll 14:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the ISBNs. If you'd like to go so far as to remove the bibliography entirely, be bold! Keesiewonder talk 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Did anyone get the impression this whole thing is a spoof? He's not really a motivational speaker, just a satire on them? His website actually sells punk rock records, and he doesn't even perform on them. His alleged books don't exist in any bookstores. Google can't find evidence he has ever been on QVC.  An erroneous article in Wikipedia?  I'm shocked.. EdJohnston 05:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I associate User:Aldini98 w/Roy Keane, not Todd Kessler. Keesiewonder talk 12:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Todd Kessler]] 

message: It's curious that the only edit someone made to WP is to insert the book currently in the risk management article that has an invalid ISBN. The author, F. Antonius Alijoyo, certainly exists and has written at least one other well known book (). But,I have not yet been able to find the one listed in the article. Thoughts? Keesiewonder talk 02:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO this one doesn't deserve being kept as an 'official' invalid ISBN. (a) wrong length, (b) not found in a library, (c) not found in a bookstore. Suggest removing the ISBN, since it's not attested in any way. EdJohnston 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Risk management]] 

message: I left a note at the WikiProject Lepidoptera talk page about the seven butterfly artilces with invalid ISBNs. I'm just going to wait 24 hours and then edit the articles if no one beats me to it. --DRoll 05:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that for every single one of those listings, we already have a valid OCLC. I recommend just removing the invalid ISBNs. Keesiewonder talk 10:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a later edition (1999) of J-C Weiss's book with a valid ISBN . If I don't get an objection from the butterfly people, I'll update all seven articles with the newer edition+good ISBN. EdJohnston 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that there are four distinct books in a series. I could be wrong. I'm just going to remove the ISBNs today.--DRoll 02:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The new ISBN looks good to me. Go for it. --DRoll 03:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butterflies 

message: FYI ... I have not looked high and low yet for this one, but have left a 
note on the article's talk page. Keesiewonder talk 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[physics]] & [[physics/wip]] 

message: This Talk page is really for ISBNs not ISSNs, but maybe the collective wisdom here will have an idea on how to solve this new problem.
John Vandenberg, Rich F. and I were looking at ISSNs some time ago and we were using an on-line ISSN-checker at issn.org.  The one we were using has just now become a dead link: http://www.issn.org:8080/English/pub/faqs/issn/issnchecking. If you go on issn.org's site they now present you with a login screen before you can check anything, and a free account only lasts thirty days. However, Advanced Science Index (ASI) provided a Online-ISSN checker http://journal-index.org/ISSN-validator/
Some Google searching indicates that the libraries of the world aren't offering an online ISSN-checker anywhere. (Maybe the check digit is patented! (Just kidding..)
I've read somewhere that the ISSN check digit uses the same algorithm as the ISBN-10, though the number is only 8 digits. Another possibility, for those who don't mind running Javascript, would be to add a button on some Wikipedia page (like Booksources) that would verify a submitted number. There is a site that offers some Javascript for the purpose at .
I don't think SmackBot is affected by this issue because it uses its own algorithm when populating :Category:Articles with invalid ISSNs.
Still another method is to use the old familiar isbn-check.com, and convert the ISSN to a pseudo-ISBN by prepending '00' in front of the ISSN you want to check. (This worked in at least two cases, so it must be right!). If you have any other ideas, please let me know.  EdJohnston 22:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up; someone has commented on the ISSN article that it is dead .  John Vandenberg 00:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  issn.org has stopped providing a free ISSN-checker 

message: What do you think of this? I'm not accustomed to PhD dissertations having ISBNs, but, if you follow the link to ProQuest, an ISBN is listed there that does pass the check digit test. Keesiewonder talk 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems OK to me. Finding an ISBN at ProQuest is an on-line verification that the ISBN is real, assuming that ProQuest is a recognized custodian of doctoral theses, which I believe is the case.  I Googled for 'ProQuest ISBN 0-496' and got 1,170 hits, so maybe ProQuest is assigning ISBNs like a publisher. EdJohnston 02:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[self-organization]] 

message: FYI, I have left messages in 3-4 places in hopes of getting some help with the remaining 2 ISBN errors ...  & ; ;
. Keesiewonder talk 23:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is taking place at . The two people I contacted kindly replied ... but a solution is not yet clear. Keesiewonder talk 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the scan, hoping for a photo  of the bar code, but no luck. On another front I have changed the template to only list mainspace articles, so these really are the last two!  When I recover my other PC I'll do another run, and see what we get... Rich Farmbrough, 10:34 9  February 2007 (GMT).
I've found    one online listing that lists the same ISBN, and note that WorldCat lists some other Tankomaster publications with OCLCs, but not this one. I'm leaning toward listing this with the Listed Invalid ISBN tag ... How do others here feel about that? Keesiewonder talk 12:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My preference would be to use Listed Invalid only when a reliable source (such as a library OPAC) connects the specific book with the given ISBN.  Otherwise we're just taking the original editor's opinion that the supplied ISBN is correct, and there is no way for any other editors to verify it. Also, in this case there is a scanned version online; that will meet the needs of most readers who care to verify the book details. EdJohnston 16:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you'd recommend removing the ISBN all together and providing a link to the pdf containing scanned Russian material? That's fine with me ... if I can get the folks who care about the article to agree. Keesiewonder talk 17:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: After thinking a bit more about this, I am not comfortable listing the scanned version as a link since I am not able to read Russian and confirm that the material truly is in the public domain. I expect since it is for sale as well, albeit in a monograph form rather than html pages, it is not really supposed to be available for free online. Keesiewonder talk 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed the ISBN from these two articles since we have not yet been able to verify it. So, at the moment, there are Zero (0) articles flagged with bad ISBNs. Please help me out if the Polikarpov ISBN returns. Keesiewonder talk 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last two: [[Polikarpov I-180]] and [[Polikarpov I-185]] 

message: User:Droll first ran across this article when he found several wrong-length ISBNs. After further study, it appeared that the books might not exist at all. I removed them here. Finally perceiving all the jokes in the article, I decided it was a hoax, and applied the prod tag. Since someone objected, the prod was removed, and now it's at AfD  here.  Anyone who has an opinion is welcome to join in the discussion. EdJohnston 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Todd Kessler]] AfD debate [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Todd_Kessler | here]] 

message: I'm hoping that Rich might respond to this comment. My proposal is to strike out the following phrase (in the text part of CAT:INVALID) that's been used to describe the relationship between ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. The following is the full section, and I've bolded the clause I'd like to remove. I'll give reasons below:
 Many books published between 2004 and 2006 have also been (explicitly) assigned ISBN-13s (they all have one based on the 10 digit ISBN, or 9 digit SBN). Until books with the 979 prefix start to appear, however, it will be possible to uniquely refer to any book either by its ISBN-10 (although there is no guarantee the book will have been issued with a 10 digit ISBN) or its (equivalent) ISBN-13 and both numbers will continue to be reserved for use by that book by the local ISBN agency. Beginning with the 979 prefix, only the ISBN-13 will work or be meaningful for the given book since there will no longer be an equivalent ISBN-10.
There is no way a publisher (at present) can issue an ISBN-13 without also making a 'hole' in the ISBN-10 range for the numerically-converted value of the ISBN-13. So, in my view, it is technically *impossible* for a publisher to release a book with an ISBN-13 beginning with 978 without also making it possible to refer to the book  using the converted ISBN-10. This fact is demonstrated by the way that Amazon looks up ISBN-13s. What they do is they first 'mechanically' convert it to an ISBN-10, and then they look up the resulting ISBN-10 in their system. (There is no way the corresponding ISBN-10 could ever be assigned to a different book).
So, in a sense, it doesn't matter if the publisher EXPLICITLY releases the book with an ISBN-10, it will automatically have one thanks to the conversion rule. I don't see this written down anywhere at isbn.org but it seems to mathematically follow from their other rules.  Striking out the bolded phrase in the above passage will make the situation more clear to our readers.
Though this might appear to be a subtlety, it could affect the urgency with which people have to stop referring to books using ISBN-10s.  I'll let you decide if you agree :-). EdJohnston 16:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assigning a 978-series ISBN-13 to a book *automatically* assigns an ISBN-10 to the same book 

message: Some of you might have heard of http://www.librarything.com, a site that allows people to register their books, and compare them with the holdings of other members. The following URL, which may or may not work for anyone else, is now listing at the bottom of the page a list of all the Wikipedia articles that refer to the ISBN of the selected book. They say that the listing is updated monthly.  I wonder if they use a WP database dump, or if they crawl through our pages, or if they search Wikipedia using Google. EdJohnston 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library Thing is doing a 'wholinkshere' via Wikipedia ISBNs 

message: An article was published online by Business 2.0 on 3 April ("Building a Wiki World", featuring an interview with Jimmy Wales) indicating that Amazon was investing in Wikia. If a company related to Wikipedia is now having this wonderful relationship with Amazon, do you think we could persuade them to do something rational, like allow searching for DVDs by their ISBN?  Here is the quote: In the fall, Amazon.com (Charts) also kicked in an undisclosed amount, a deal driven by founder Jeff Bezos's longstanding interest in Wales's work. Bezos has singled out Wikipedia as the site that "cracked the code for user-generated content" and once told Wales that he wished he had designed Amazon's user reviews of books and CDs to be more like collaborative wiki pages.
As discussed elsewhere in this Talk page, DVDs are being published (usually) with ISBNs on the back, and yet Amazon will not find them by ISBN.  This seems to force us to use ASINs, which are frowned upon.  Who would like to write to Amazon about this issue?  EdJohnston 22:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How ridiculous would it be for Amazon to find DVDs by their ISBNs?