Category talk:Articles with invalid ISBNs/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

[edit] Some useful notes, and some wrongly published or maybe wrongly printed ISBNs

2-10-4. Jack Farrell, 'North American Steam Locomotives: the Berkshire and Texas Types'. The ISBN originally given in WP was 91-571-3151-2, which is invalid. It seems most likely to be a copying error, rather than published invalid. (Can't be sure without seeing a physical copy of the book). I updated the WP article with the correct ISBN, 0-915713-15-2.

A Certain Woman, by Areo Takishima, published 1978 by University of Tokyo Press.. First marked in WP as 'No ISBN available'. Originally published with ISBN 0680082377, which is invalid. The Library of Congress still has it entered under the bad ISBN and even finds it by that number using an ISBN search. Update. User:Schutz at A Certain Woman has updated the page with a corrected ISBN, whereby two digits are switched from the original. It is now ISBN 0860082377 and said to be published in 1978 by Columbia Univ. Press. Haven't seen a physical copy of this book. But at least one edition must have been published invalid because it was entered that way in the Library of Congress. It now gives me great ironic pleasure to show this link to an online bookstore, where both editions (Tokyo and New York) are shown in the same listing, one with the bad ISBN and one with the good! [1]. Thanks to Schutz for helping get to the bottom of this! EdJohnston 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'saka language lists 'I'saka grammar' by Mark Donohoe and Lila San Roque, published in 2004. Now marked as 'No ISBN available'. WP originally gave the ISBN 0-85883-554-4, which is invalid. No replacement for the bad ISBN is currently available. LOC lists the book in its catalog, but does not given an ISBN for it, and MARC offset 020 is an empty field.

Ahmad al-Alawi lists a book by Johan Cartigny, 'Cheikh Al Alawi. Documents et temoignages.' Listed in the Univ of Michigan catalog with ISBN 0290529021, which is invalid. Now marked as 'No ISBN available'.

  • Switched 'No ISBN available' to OCLC link plus implemented a bit of other polishing. Keesiewonder talk 00:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ajahn Sobin S. Namto lists a book called 'Insight meditation: practical steps to ultimate truth'. The WP editor who created the page says ISBN 947-8357-85-6 is printed in the book, which is invalid. Now marked as 'No ISBN available'. Comment left in Talk page.

Rose: A color of darkness, by Amon Liner. Published with the invalid ISBN 0-932112-09-2 printed in the book. Since then it has been re-issued with a valid ISBN, namely 0-932112-09-9. The WP article has been updated with the new number.

A Google search for the phrase 'Cancelled ISBN' also comes up with this hit: [2], which cites the book Andrew Wilton, 'Journey through the Alps', with 'cancelled ISBN' 3856347756. This book is found in the LOC but with no ISBN listed.

I had previously surmised that the Library of Congress was actually attempting to track good and bad ISBNs for the same book, using the terminology 'cancelled ISBN', but the records I have kept are not good enough to document any actual cases. Certainly the LOC do not seem to filter out bad ISBNs when you search, and in some cases they still deliver book records under their original bad ISBN, which is something that booksinprint.com and abebooks.com admirably refuse to do. Those libraries and services that overtly flag bad ISBNs are truly the most customer-friendly long-term, because not knowing you have a bad ISBN is just storing up trouble for the future. Unfortunately worldcat.org won't flag a bad ISBN and just tells you the book is not found. You still need to use isbn.org/converterpub.asp in case of doubt. EdJohnston 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (Transferred from my talk page Rich Farmbrough, 12:53 14 December 2006 (GMT).)

I find nothing "admirable" about refusing to return information for an invalid ISBN. When a publisher prints an invalid ISBN they are doing an inadvertent disservice, but for a library to refuse to look up based on known information is to be deliberately unreasonable -- hardly customer-friendly. An invalid number is nearly as likely to be unique as a valid number, and thus quite unlikely to return a false positive. I agree that flagging them is the right thing to do -- and understand that some databases want to avoid storing invalid numbers at any cost. However, by storing them and flagging them as invalid they meet the needs of both the librarian and the customer. Cleduc 00:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Note: I'm taking this to Talk:International Standard Book Number#Testing of invalid ISBNs within the publishing industry. Cleduc 00:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Muldoon: The Rise and Fall of a Young Turk. Wellington: A.H. & A.W. Reed, ISBN 0-589-00873-1 (1974) appears to have been published with an invalid ISBN. User:Gadfium has agreed that an OCLC number be added but requests that the ISBN be kept. EdJohnston 03:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Switched article reference over to new {{Listed Invalid ISBN|...}}. Keesiewonder talk 00:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Aegialornis: Another example of an ISBN invalid-as-published. Mlikovsky book is available online as a PDF, and it has the bad ISBN printed in it. Removed the bad ISBN from the article here and left a comment on Talk:Aegialornis explaining my research. Book not found in Worldcat or in Czech national library. EdJohnston 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Previously updated by another editor to new {{Listed Invalid ISBN|...}}. Removed extra instance of ISBN in citation. Keesiewonder talk 01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya_Muslim_Community. Same problem as in Aegialornis. Book is available online, and the online version has a bad ISBN, this time one digit too short. Made this edit. Worldcat carries the book, but only under its OCLC, which is what they normally do when the ISBN is bad. EdJohnston 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Previously updated by another editor to new {{Listed Invalid ISBN|...}}. Keesiewonder talk 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Portrait of the Cheshire Lines Committee was printed with 0-7110-2512-5, according to Amazon it should be 0-7110-2521-5. Rich Farmbrough, 18:01 16 December 2006 (GMT).

FWIW, I'm finished with this thread. Keesiewonder talk 01:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charger the long living Tiger

Looking at Bandhavgarh National Park the book is as follows:

  • Shahbaz Ahmad: Charger the long living Tiger, Print World, Allahabad, 2001 ISBN 81-7738-000-3

Unfortunatly, its wrong. Marked by a bot as wrong, and any tools I've tried online say the checkdigit is wrong (and should be 1 if anything) but 81-7738-000-1 is a different book. (see this in worldcat) Everywhere I've found specifies this broken ISBN. The book isn't in LOC, worldcat, or the british library as far as I can tell. Kevin_b_er 21:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

81-7738-009-3 perhaps. Or maybe they just increment the last digit! (this page lists both the numbers/books you give.) Again, the only way of fully resolving is to contact the publisher or ISBN agency. A vexed question indeed. Rich Farmbrough, 10:52 13 September 2006 (GMT).

If an ISBN is wrong inside the book (not uncommon), try looking at the version printed above the barcode on the back cover, as these are usually computer generated/checked.--Shantavira 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that the 13 digit EAN (below the barcode) (correctly hyphenated) is now a valid 13 digit ISBN, assuming it is correct. Rich Farmbrough, 18:03 16 December 2006 (GMT).
  • Switched over to new {{Listed Invalid ISBN ...}} Keesiewonder talk 01:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Finished w/this thread Keesiewonder talk 01:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many

There were about 2,500 members shortly after the first creation of this category:

  • 1162 as of 10:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done everybody. Rich Farmbrough, 10:38 13 September 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Wrong in the book

I have re-checked the book source in King Edward VI High School for Girls ISBN 0-510-76250-3 and it is printed as quoted in the article, although the check digit fails. How should this be handled? The book can't be changed. Oosoom Talk to me 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I searched for this in www.worldcat.org and found it right away! (pure luck). That entry shows an ISBN that's different in one digit, 0-510-26250-3. I'd suggest you update your article based on the Worldcat information. When updating, it is good to include the publisher (Benn) in the citation. Also in the case of books that might be hard to find like this one, it would be helpful to our readers if you include the actual first names of the authors. That would aid in any future library searching. EdJohnston 15:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
What a useful web site. Bookmarked for future reference. I've updated the article as you suggested. Many thanks. Oosoom Talk to me 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, worldcat is amazingly useful for cleaning out this cat. I put this cat on dragons flight's category tracker too so I can watch it go down. (Look at the bottom for it). --Kevin_b_er 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Another case: this time in Sky Gilbert for Ten ruminations on an elegy attributed to William Shakespeare. Unfortunately the invalid ISBN number is the one printed in the book (and also listed in worldcat.org). I noted this information in the template -- I didn't want to remove it, or on the next run it'll just get flagged again. Maybe there should be a template for "intentionally wrong ISBN number" to mark these as "safe." Cleduc 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • New template has been implemented and inserted by another editor. I added OCLC link as well. Keesiewonder talk 11:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm finished with this thread. Keesiewonder talk 11:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New entries

I have just formatted every ISBN I can, and labelled invalid "please check" those I can't. I may do a check-sum scan in December as well. That's why the total has gone up to 1596. :( Rich Farmbrough, 22:45 27 November 2006 (GMT).

P.S. I have done a similar exercise on ISSN numbers, see category:Articles with invalid ISSNs. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46 27 November 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Why this category?

I've just discovered this category. Invalid ISBNs are completely useless, so I'm puzzled as to why they are not simply deleted, as per any other incorrect information in Wikipedia. Why not have other categories of "articles with mistakes in them"? Or am I missing something? Otherwise I am minded to go through Wikipedia deleting all the wrong ISBNs, and see what happens. After all, there are plenty of other references to books without any mention of an ISBN.--Shantavira 17:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • My sense is that this is a listing of entries that are mostly correct, but there is a problem with the ISBN as displayed (often a typo). Rather than delete all information pertaining to the reference, the information is kept in hopes that folks that care about the article with the error will fix it. Perhaps the best solution when an ISBN cannot be clarified/corrected is to delete the ISBN, leaving the other information that points to the reference. Keesiewonder 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • An editor who sees an invalid ISBN and is patient will succeed in replacing it with a good ISBN more than 90% of the time. In those cases where the book was either (a) published with an invalid number, or (b) so obscure that you can't find a good ISBN elsewhere, you can delete the ISBN and, provided a library holds the book, replace the ISBN with an OCLC number. User:JesseW has created a convenient Template:OCLC for adding these numbers. If all else fails, I believe that deleting the bad ISBN completely is the right thing to do. I don't agree with Shantavira's suggestion of just removing the bad ISBNs without fixing them, because that loses information, and it could cause more hostility from the editor who added the reference in the first place. People are receptive when you fix their ISBNs who might not like it if you just delete them. EdJohnston 20:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Also the removed ISBN may just get replaced from the same source. Rich Farmbrough, 15:52 15 December 2006 (GMT).
You would be suprised how much I got shouted at in the early days for labelling them as invalid! There are cases when the book can be found with the invalid ISBN, and sometimes if page numbers (or the exact edition) are important a mis-typed ISBN will enable you to find the right one - usually a missing digit, or transposed digits. As Ed says, if you can't find a valid one at all, then probably worht deleting with a note. Rich Farmbrough, 22:34 14 December 2006 (GMT).

Fair enough. I'll happily fix a few when I get some time, but that won't be soon. Of course in a few days' time they'll all be invalid – sort of. A nice little job for a bot if they're all supposed to be converted to 13 digits.--Shantavira 14:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I invented {{Template:auto isbn}}. It's also why I wanted the checksums checked ASAP because they get thrown away on the conversion. Rich Farmbrough, 15:45 15 December 2006 (GMT).
  • Regarding Rich's last point, I'd recommend that we not convert any ISBN-10s with bad checksums to ISBN-13. We should flag them and leave them in place.
  • When an ISBN shows up invalid, we only know that an error happened; we don't know which error. More than 90% of the time a correct ISBN for the given book exists somewhere in the world, but finding it takes work. So when the ISBN-13 standard arrives, it will never be safe to merely convert invalid ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s by formula. Rich's records of the bad ISBNs will still be pointing to problems that can only be fixed by research, done by our crack team of 'ISBN-fixers' or ideally by the editor who created the reference in the first place.
  • The arrival of ISBN-13 will (surprisingly) be a non-event in terms of correctness of Wikipedia's ISBNs. Old *good* ISBNs will still work and will still order books for you. Old *bad* ISBNs will still be wrong and still need to be fixed by hand or (eventually) removed from Wikipedia.
  • There is no need to convert our ISBNs to 13 digits any faster than the libraries of the world do. Any guesses how fast the Library of Congress, or the British Library, will do it? We just need to be able to *accept* ISBN-13s that are entered in reference lists, and handle them correctly in places like Special:booksources. Curiously, the latter doesn't work yet for ISBN-13. Anybody working on this? :-) EdJohnston 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Booksource does handle them correctly, I tested one on Friday. Rich Farmbrough, 18:27 16 December 2006 (GMT).
Go to ISBN, click on the 13-digit sample ISBN near upper right of page, it takes you to Booksources, then click on 'Check ISBN for plausibility'. It then opens up this URL: http://www.isbn-check.de/checkisbn.pl?isbn=9788175257665, which returns the error message "ISBN 9788175257665 was input with more than 11 digits". The problem seems to be with isbn-check.de rather than Booksources itself. Is there an alternative to isbn-check.de that we could use? The German WP uses the same isbn-check.de that we do, and notes that it is only for checking ISBN-10s. (The French WP has no checker on the Booksources page). EdJohnston 04:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Update. The U.S. Library of Congress provides an ISBN-converter, accepting either 10 or 13 digits, that also verifies the check digit! (It's at http://pcn.loc.gov/isbncnvt.html). Unfortunately it accepts ISBNs starting with 6, so it must not be checking the valid ranges the way isbn.org's tool does. But isbn-check.de is equally bad, because it also takes numbers starting with 6. The only converter that does everything is the one at isbn.org. To call it from Booksources, we would need to create a URL containing the ISBN to be checked, and I don't know if that site will accept such a URL. EdJohnston 05:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'v emailed THomas Schild of Isbn-check. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26 19 December 2006 (GMT).
Thomas is a Wikipidean, and is planning on upgrading isbn-check over the holidays. Rich Farmbrough, 09:35 22 December 2006 (GMT).
It seems most European libraries are not accepting 13 digits yet. Compare:
Looking at the Karlsruhe the first returns many hists, the second herdly any
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=9780385504201 does a little better. Rich Farmbrough, 11:31 18 December 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Checksum run

Doing the promised checksum run. 'Fraid the category is now passing 1600 entries. Rich Farmbrough, 18:24 16 December 2006 (GMT).

And still rising... Rich Farmbrough, 11:06 18 December 2006 (GMT).
Do you get at the same time the total number of ISBN numbers present in Wikipedia and which got checked ? Just wondering what the proportion of errors is... Schutz 08:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No, but the number of articles (with ISBNs) is about 84,000. Some have several ISBNs. I could do an approximate count tonight. Also it would be possible to estimate the number of uncorrected errors (2 typos that "balance"), ans the rate of errors over time. The run is now 80-90% done, maybe more. Rich Farmbrough, 09:33 22 December 2006 (GMT).
Checksum run finished. Rich Farmbrough, 10:52 23 December 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Amazon now showing 13 digit ISBN

OK, looks like the book wrld is getting it's act together. Amazon now shows 13 and 10 digit ISBNs. BL are requesting 13 digit in all documentation according to User:Rodw. I've done a short test run, so let me know if there's any pages worth prioritising, or where you can check the conversion. Rich Farmbrough, 10:52 23 December 2006 (GMT).

Rich, I've been grabbing 13 digits anytime I find them. Is Wiki going to have heartburn over doing that? I've been using Amazon for over a week now with Abebooks as my search back-up and have just started using the full title "ISBN-13 and the number" to replace any corrections. I feel like it is a waste of time to just plug in another 10 digit replacement.Ekotkie 18:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Rich, I am done with the "B's" and off to the C row. I have begun to hate the people who have buried their isbn's under reference. It really is time consuming to read all of the text just to pull out a buried isbn. Hope you had a nice holiday.Ekotkie 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaints about SmackBot converting ISBN-10s to ISBN-13

See the following link [3] for a debate that took place on WP:ANI, on 23-25 December 2006. To save space here I copied only the initial complaint and summarized the rest.

“ The Smackbot robot changed the 10 digit ISBNs to 13 digit ISBNs in UK Dispersion Modelling Bureau and in Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering. As a result, one could no longer click on the ISBNs and then look them up in the Library of Congress or other libraries ... whereas one could do that with the 10 digit ISBNs. I don't know how many other articles have had the same change made by the robot. (I reverted the changes made in the above two articles).

That defeats the purpose of including the ISBNs in the book citation template. Please ask User:Rich Farmbrough to stop the robot from changing to the 13 digit ISBN's until a solution is found to this problem. I have placed this same request on his Talk page. - User:mbeychok 18:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 ”

A four-page discussion ensued. Rich Farmbrough offered this list of options:

“ Conversion
  1. Do nothing (not compliant with standard, may not look good)
  2. Convert to 13 digit now (not compliant with book sources)
  3. Convert all to 10 digit (retro ?)
  4. Convert to 13 digit later (compromise)
  5. Supply both (Which does the user click on? Good for providing info though)
  6. Use the {{auto isbn}} template or similar to set everything up with a changeover date to be decided by concensus (Good in lots of ways - but consensus may be indef. delayed)
 ”
“ Meanwhile SB is currently doing 1. in the top set of options, and stand ready to do any of the others apart from 3. Rich Farmbrough, 12:23 24 December 2006 (GMT). ”

See the original discussion for the parts of Rich's analysis that I omitted. As you can see from my comments (higher up on the present Talk page) I don't see the urgency of converting Wikipedia's ISBNs now, so I am very comfortable with his Option 1. EdJohnston 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Even as I agree with EdJ I ask myself, what will these users do when they are faced with their own, distinct ISBN-13 number with no 10 digit to *rely* on? Why are they not asking these questions of the LoC and other libraries? Having delt with procedures with LoC in the past, I have found them to be very difficult to deal with. The impression I have always gotten has been "Our way or the highway". The keepers of ISBN's structure have created a huge flaw by not using a "Grandfathering" procedure. It is very much like the incident where Rich changed 6 novel ISBN's for books that have been in publication for 25 years because ISBN-13's new rules prohibited these books from using the assigned numbers. And just how will these books be cataloged in the future with sellers and buyers? And then there is the barcode issue whereby the whole ISBN structure may go away or the fact that some people are already looking at a 14 digit system. I would give some strong consideration before bowing to a *unofficial* cease and desist request.Ekotkie 17:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazon now showing dual ISBNs, and will search on ISBN-13, but won't find a hyphenated ISBN-13

See Salt of the Air by Vera Nazarian. You can search on either of the two ISBNs, and provided you remove the single hyphen that they show in the ISBN-13, it will find it. Curiously, you can observe that their ISBN-13 search is actually doing a conversion to ISBN-10 before doing the lookup. (Look at the URL of the page that you find). When you give Amazon a hyphenated ISBN-10 it appears to remove the hyphens before doing the search, which should be easy to do, so I hope they fix their ISBN-13 behavior soon.

Abebooks.com will search on ISBN-13 and doesn't care about hyphens, but it shows only the ISBN-10 in a book entry.

Luckily isbn-check.de will now verify ISBN-13s. EdJohnston 02:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed, HNY. I have been using Amazon as one of my sources and for awhile started using 13 digit ISBNs. Then Rich started getting flack and I just said "Geesh" (or words to that effect) and now all I am using is 10 digit. I figure it will be easier, all the way around to let a bot make the conversion. In many cases the title here has been bracketed. I have found that Amazon also ignores the brackets. Smart engine they have over there. As for hyphens, I gave up on them a long time ago. I do not see any value in using them. A straight number works all the time. LoC also didn't like hyphens awhile back. Coffee at my side, back to fixing stuff.Ekotkie 17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An ISBN that passes isbn-check.de but fails at isbn.org

ISBN 3927620564, "A !Xoo Dictionary". I re-ran the check today and it's passing at isbn.org, so please ignore my previous statement. EdJohnston 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D Row

Rich, EdJ D row is finished and off to the E row. Bunch of weird encounters in the D row. Look up Doom novels and how this person used a program to place his isbn's. I was going to add his missing isbn (in addition to making a correction) but just gave up.Ekotkie 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • OMG! May I suggest we switch to this (excluding my world sandbox stuff)? Keesiewonder talk 12:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The Doom novels page needs someone to go in and undo the subst-ing of a citation template which was done here. They should never be substituted (see WP:CITE). EdJohnston 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought what I suggested above would accomplish precisely that. I'll be bold and put in my change and you can undo it if I am in error. Keesiewonder talk 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! EdJohnston 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E Row

Just finished my pass through the E'sEkotkie 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falun Gong

Must be edited by an administratorEkotkie 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A tough row

Just finished the first pass of the F row. Ekotkie 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G Row

First pass completedEkotkie 20:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Quite some progress over the past few weeks! Rich Farmbrough, 00:04 10 January 2007 (GMT).
and someone's made a major impact today! Rich Farmbrough, 17:13 10 January 2007 (GMT).

The so-called eternal optimist hopes to have time to whittle this down some over the weekend. So, we are < 2000 ! < 1500 is next! :-) Excellent! Keesiewonder 10:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wavy Gravy

I wonder why Wavy Gravy falls under G instead of W in this listing. Keesiewonder talk 18:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Let's remove the ISBN. If the material was published by RX Records, it is (probably) not a book and thus won't have an ISBN, right?!? Keesiewonder talk 00:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the ISBN and left a note on the article's talk page. Keesiewonder talk 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H row

First pass completedEkotkie 17:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rich, EdJ. I have just received a note from a contact in Hong Kong as to the errant isbn for that subject page. He drew a big blank in searching his direct Hong Kong Library sources. The "book" in question is only 23 pages long. It strikes me as being more like a thesis paper then a book. Recommend that the faulty ISBN be struck and leave the ref. data for others. Be bold, use a broad sword.Ekotkie 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Row

Iron Maiden -- Administrator edit only —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.242.209.79 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

That is my comment above. Wasn't logged in for some reason. The "I" row has been completed for its first pass.Ekotkie 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mainspace category?

Why is the "Articles with invalid ISBNs" category in the article-space? This is meta-data (information about the article, not about the subject of the article) which is what the talk pages were created for. According to Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace "Categories relating to the Wikipedia namespace should be added only to the talk page of articles." ·maclean 04:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about this. The ISBNs represent content that is actually *IN* the article. It's not a matter of opinion, like 'Articles that need better referencing'. That would in fact be a Talk page issue. Editors who prefer to keep invalid ISBNs in their article should be aware of the fact that they are actually presenting such ISBNs to the world. The category is a way of drawing that to their attention, and also letting readers know, since they may prefer to avoid such ISBNs. EdJohnston 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Maclean25 is right in principle, and I agree in principle. However.... Firstly most cleanup templates and categories go on article space. Secondly the template that introduces the category is located next to the dubious ISBN, thus identifing it clearly. Thirdly, as Ed points out, it does affect content. Fourthly to conform to the ideal I would need to comment out the dubious ISBN with an approprite note then add a section to the talk page, (which could be archived), which would need an extension of WP:AWB to be written, and then when the article was being fixed two operations would be needed. Moreover the talk page and articles would get out of sync as editing, merges and splits occurred. What I would like to see is invisible categories for self refs. Rich Farmbrough, 23:26 12 January 2007 (GMT).

[edit] J Row

First pass completed on the J row.Ekotkie 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Booksources

I have had some replies from booksources, including Amazon who say they are now fully compliant. Rich Farmbrough, 23:29 12 January 2007 (GMT).

FWIW, I have found Amazon to be much more helpful in locating ISBN. Of course my using that has confused the Amazon tracking tool and it now is making all sorts of weird recommendations for me to buy.....haha. Ekotkie 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F's

Just done a pass on these, fairly good success rate.Rich Farmbrough, 00:40 13 January 2007 (GMT).

[edit] K Row

First pass has been completed. For some strange reason "Kyp Durron" shows up on this list but has no template attached to it.Ekotkie 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem I have seen before. It may be becasue there are many servers, or it may be a glitch. Editing the article usually takes care of it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:46 13 January 2007 (GMT).

[edit] L Row

Interesting one. The template added a 0 to the isbn string and thereby declared it, invalidEkotkie 19:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the bot's edit. This is Drakhan fixing the ISBN, and leaving the template. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 14:33 15 January 2007 (GMT).
Not sure I understand this point, Rich. Why is he fixing the ISBN and leaving the template? I have been able to fix most comics and games. I did run into a large (JP) comic version that I had to flag and leave. The data was too skimpy to locate, but a *expert* would have been able to do better. I have a very strong appreciation now for "full title, Full author's name and even for publisher's name". I have seen many titles that were incorrect and that has slowed down my ability to locate the correct information. WorldCat confuses me a bit. Sometimes they will have 3-4 ISBN's to sort through. 13 digit stands out, but I see little value in listing hardback AND paperback. Let the person viewing the page go search that out if that is an issue with them. I think it is much more important to give them the correct data to search by. I would side with using OCLC but my wife has explained that OCLC is a VERY expensive tool (20K+) to acquire and only large organizations can afford the subscription. Thanks for the head-up on all these stats gathers. Ekotkie 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think, either he didn't understand the template, or didin't see it. He was making other changes at the same time. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25 16 January 2007 (GMT).
Just completed the first pass of the L Row. Ekotkie 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
On the point of Worldcat being expensive, we use the free version, and I assume that all our readers can use that as well. EdJohnston 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Huh??? I said that OCLC is very expensive. It is a subscription service that major libraries and research firms use. OCLC is more of a research tool rather then a cataloging tool. Ekotkie 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, OCLC "catalogs" in respect to inter-library loans. WorldCat is a division of the OCLC central product line. Ekotkie 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)