Talk:MARC standards

Libraries High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

MARC-8[edit]

Should MARC-8 be mentioned in a heading, which points to the main article MARC-8? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNIMARC[edit]

The title UNIMARC redirects to this article, but UNIMARC is not mentioned in the article (is it an alternative name; is it one of the variations ...etc). unimarc--Mayz (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make it easier[edit]

I did a pass trying to make it easier to understand without removing the technical information. I reordered the sentences in some paragraphs to get the overall point first, did some rewording, and adding a few citations. I also added Henriette Avram to the lead since she invented it. There are still sections that are too technical. And at this point I think we really need a BIBFRAME entry, since that effort is well along.dweinberger 16:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweinberger (talk • contribs)

"Classification schedules"[edit]

The lead section mentions "Classification schedules" as one format defined by the MARC 21 family of standards. But Classification schedules is a wikilink to Library classification, which seems to be a general article about item classification including many specific schemes, such as DDC, LC, and CC. This appears to be an error, a contradiction, or possibly a difference in level between "classification" and "format encoding".

I'm not a library scientist, so all of this is over my head, but it seems to me that the lead section of this article needs a correction to this wikilink, and possibly more clarification in general, avoiding jargon a bit better. We need an expert to work on making these things clearer for non-experts. David Spector (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MARC standards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209042415/http://www.niso.org/kst/reports/standards?step=2&gid=&project_key=fb7a107043228a342cb704973825aca7bc6ae58d to http://www.niso.org/kst/reports/standards?step=2&gid=&project_key=fb7a107043228a342cb704973825aca7bc6ae58d

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in naming[edit]

I am going to go through and change the four references of "MARC21" to "MARC 21" as I've found the space version to be used on the LOC site.

Thanks! WesT (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right, there were only two in the article. The other two were external references, both of which had both spellings, though with the non-spaced version much more popular. WesT (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UKMARC[edit]

The UK used a format called UKMARC. I presume this is a derived format based on MARC. (I once had to develop a C++ library to read UKMARC, without any documentation for the format, but have no experience of MARC otherwise so can't speak to the differences.)

The UKMARC Exchange Record Format - The British Library

UKMARC: A format for the twenty‐first century?

The UKMARC Manual: A Cataloguer's Guide to the Bibliographic Format — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.42.139 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need Example[edit]

We need an example of a couple of different MARC records. These should be displayed on the page and then in a table format with the meaning of each code explained. Lehasa (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]