Talk:Standardization

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WOW

I haven't been able to find a clear definition of what a standard is, but ISO certainly produces standards. On the other hand, W3C only produces recommendations, which may be submitted to standards bodies. W3C never claims to produce standards! The reason may be that W3C is a consortium - but I guess you need a lawyer to tell the difference. Yaronf 22:54 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

(Better late than never?) Since this article is linked from ones such as Internet Explorer, I have gone ahead and added a paragraph to clarify that the standards that govern the Internet tend to be de facto, and that the W3C and IETF, among others, intentionally call their publications by names other than "standard" so as not to conflict with ISO, IEC, etc. - mjb 03:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The source for the military (NATO) definition is http://www.nato.int/docu/stanag/aap006/aap6.htm -80.133.100.144 00:02, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A separate page on standard (technical) has been added to clarify this. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

standardisation vs standardization

My perception is that there are some subtle differences between the british notion of standardization and the american english notion of standardisation. The first one appears to me dealing with compliance, the latter one dealing with conformance. This maybe of interest to the community of lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsten.hatger (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

standards

To me, standards are just an attempt to organize things. Maybe I'm using the wrong word, but ultimelly I've always seem standardization as a way to set rules for better organizing anything by grouping into categories and trying to make it clear and common.

For example cable standards (RCA, etc), TV standards (Pal-M, NTSC), internet standards (HTTP) all fit in that description.

Anyway, maybe I'm thinking in one concept and using the wrong word, but I still couldn't find a better (english) word for it. Also haven't looked too deep yet... :P

I'm quite surprised to see some articles in wikipedia where it goes way too technical in one field instead of the generic aspect view of it. I'd say this is one.

--Cacumer 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language standardisation

Anyone? - FrancisTyers 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural language standardisation: no specific standard. It "emerges from culture" and are compiled/consolidated into well-acepted Grammars, Dictionaries (ortography tradictions and/or country-level standards), and Style guides, and perhaps a little of "country-oficial normative principles". Very very rare (remember only Esperanto) start a natural language with a standard, and to fix a unique "oficial reference standard".
Formal language standardisation: like any other standard, need a Standards organization to fix it.

-- 5 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.43.54.214 (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yup, I was mostly talking about natural language standardisation, but this page doesn't cover it. Care to do an article? :) - Francis Tyers · 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of de facto and de jure

I found the definition of de facto and de jure with regards to Standardisation that is given in this page to be at odds with a number of other sources. The impression given here is that de jure standards are ones that are used due to legal contract, whereas in other places (for example in a paper by Erik Duval entitled "Learning Technology Standardization: Making Sense of it all" [1]) de jure standards are those that are created by entities such as ISO and may or may not have mandated use associated with them. Duval also lists Microsoft Office as a de facto standard, illustrative of the issue that things that we sometimes call "standard" are often not necessarily "bringing benefits without hurting competition". This point might more correctly be associated with "Open standardisation". --JBrusey 23:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

s13n?

I've never heard of the term s13n. Can anyone add into this article how the term s13n came about, and why it means standardization?

I agree 69.213.70.93 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Please Clean it! -- Krauss 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to clean up the definition of "technical standardization" and also clean up the definition of "technical standard." The former would be a major change as much that is discussed under standardization seems to belong under standards. However, I cannot contribute to the other non-technical uses of the terms standardization and standards. So if this task can be parsed, I am qualified to address a part of it. For my qualification please see http://www.csrstds.com/klist.html

Krechmer 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Ironic...

The article "Standardization" requires cleanup? Doesn't anyone see the irony in that? Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is pretty ironic as well: "Standardization (or standardisation) is [...]" I wish the UK/US spelling differences didn't exist. --85.5.154.155 (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The irony was certainly not lost on me... 203.97.144.176 03:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Standard or Standards organization

The articles are so related: the Standardization is the process adopted in the Standards organizations for produce Standards. There are more people for write a good article (!).

Please vote and justify:

Merge with the Standards organization article

Merge with the Standard article

Readers will not want to read separate articles about standards, the standardization process and an overview of standards organizations. The information in these articles is of an introductory and overview nature and splitting it up does not help the reader. Combining it does not produce an overly long article. All of this should be merged into one Standard (technical) article (Standard should be the disambiguation page). Other articles can get into the details of individual standards and standards bodies. --Kvng (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not merge

The article on technical standards should remain basically as is. the standards organization article is OK. Not all "standardization" happens via a standards organization so perhaps it could remain. I therefore suggest not merging. However, there is much redundancy among the articles which needs to be cleaned up. Rlsheehan (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are they kept updated? Bring out difference between ‘artifact’ and ‘quantum’ standards with a suitable example.

When ISO is developing Standards, why does each country have its own body to make standards. (They can straightway adopt ISO standards and save on time and money.) Explain. Give two such examples of our country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.114.202 (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No References?

Moshokoa Matome Raymond from bochum Bergendal Senwabarwana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.218.222 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only person who thinks that this article doesn't really cite any references for stated 'facts' even when it is written asif a direct quote from something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad.wilko (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly used standards

In the various articles related to standardization and technical standards I failed to see any mention of even the most basic standards, like those kept by national bureaus for weight and measures. Also missing are the most basic electrical standards (voltages, frequencies) and standard screw sizes.

I would like to add some information on the historical development of standards and the role of machine tool builders, but see no place that this fits into anything written here.Phmoreno (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other uses need to go to a disambiguation page

It does not belong in the article. I would create a disambiguation page if knew how and had time.Phmoreno (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish?

From paragraph 2 of the lead:

Standardization is defined as best technical application consentual wisdom inclusive of processes for selection in making appropriate choices for ratification coupled with consistent decisions for maintaining obtained standards.

Huh? 208.50.124.65 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. It is word salad, to the point that I can hardly guess whether it was a good-faith effort or an intentional punking (vandalism). I'm guessing the latter. I'm deleting it. Anyone who wants to try again with it will need to put the effort into clarifying it. I have not viewed this page in a long time, and your comment brought it to my attention on my watchlist. — ¾-10 00:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Standardization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100903145102/http://www.iec.ch:80/about/history/articles/colonel_crompton.htm to http://www.iec.ch/about/history/articles/colonel_crompton.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu timescale

Why? This seems like irrelevant information. It even pushes the Maudslay screwcutter picture way down into the next section. Can someone explain, in detail, why this is a helpful image for the topic of Standardization? Or delete it? Anyways - random dude awayyyy 2602:306:317C:4890:4CB4:36D7:64A9:6CD8 (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiii

you the sanest person alive that commy:) 47.7.52.45 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"disinterested bodies"

Apart from noticing someone trying to be either funny or unethical in their use of "disinterested", I'm interested if there's anything to back up the statement about the reasons for not using the word "standard" in the name of RFCs or W3C Recs. If there is, then let's see it cited, perhaps? Both are standards according to the definition given at the beginning of this article.

they are rarely referred to as standards, so as to preserve that word as the domain of relatively disinterested bodies such as ISO

(in the section "Usage / information exchange")

(And as far as "being referred to" is concerned, then yes, they are constantly referred to as "standards" by anyone with even half a foot in the area.) I'll edit out the "relatively disinterested" for now. Bansp (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]