Talk:International Standard Bibliographic Description

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

AlainV reinstated deleted text under the heading Variations, but any useful information in the section is already covered by the section before it. Otherwise, the text is very amateurishly written, is inaccurate and undocumented, and has little to do with the ISBD as an international standard. It should be deleted.--JBH23 01:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations[edit]

The section on abbreviations has no business in this article. It might fit better in the article Library catalog. -- JBH23 (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info about parallel title....[edit]

--222.64.29.59 (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.29.59 (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.29.59 (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info about generic term....[edit]

--222.64.31.231 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.31.231 (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of Ref 4 (pdf format) in the article[edit]

When one has read to the term, such as generic term, it should refer directly to the term definition, even it exists within the doc. Otherwise, the Appendix E should appear in the beginning of the artice with whatever a proper section title --222.64.31.231 (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest wiki admin to create a template that is capable of in-doc referencing as the practice is well known to thesis writing

Further information: Citation_templates

--222.64.31.231 (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term General material designation is highlighted based on the following....[edit]

to distinguish the term of General material description

--222.64.31.231 (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.31.231 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.31.231 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in ISBD entry[edit]

There is a mistake in the example of the ISBD entry. I don't know what rules were used, but if the editor was using AACR2, then he/she should have realised the mistake:

A manual for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations : Chicago style for students and researchers / Kate L. Turabian ; revised by Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams, and University of Chicago Press editorial staff. — 7th ed. — Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2007. — xviii, 466 p. : ill. ; 23 cm. — (Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing). — Includes bibliographical references (p. 409-435) and index. — ISBN 978-0-226-82336-2 (cloth : alk. paper) : USD35.00. — ISBN 978-0-226-82337-9 (pbk. : alk. paper) : USD17.00

There are two many authors listed here. The maximum number of authors is three. For any more than three, the entry should show the first named author, followed by: "...[et al.]", which means "and others". As a result, the entry should look like this:

A manual for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations : Chicago style for students and researchers / Kate L. Turabian...[et al]. — 7th ed. — Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2007. — xviii, 466 p. : ill. ; 23 cm. — (Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing). — Includes bibliographical references (p. 409-435) and index. — ISBN 978-0-226-82336-2 (cloth : alk. paper) : USD35.00. — ISBN 978-0-226-82337-9 (pbk. : alk. paper) : USD17.00

--Klltr (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example was obviously created according to the ISBD, not AACR2. --JBH23 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the new Area 0[edit]

The 2011 revision added a new "area zero" that lists "media type"; someone with a better understanding of the standards should write it up. You can find a good explanation of it in IFLA's official explanation here: http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/isbd/isbd-examples_2013.pdf

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Standard_Bibliographic_Description&oldid=1200751345"