Talk:Bookland

Imaginary Place?

This article should be renamed Bookland (barcode). It's about a barcode, not an imaginary place. It may use a fictitious location code, but it's about a barcode.--RLent (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Bookland. Aervanath (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

---

• Bookland (imaginary place)→Bookland — the page Bookland (imaginary place) was created by someone who didn't know how to use "for" tags, apparently. Moving, as more common, err... spelling. And anyway, it should be Bookland (fictional location) anyway. *sigh* 7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c ) 22:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Or Bookland (disambiguation) to Bookland? There are plenty of 2-way disambig pages.

  Bookland (imaginary place) is not a "fictional location" in a story like Middle Earth or Tatooine etc, but an administrative fiction that arose in changing how books are classified. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• The barcode does seem to be the primary topic, over an archaic 7th century term that vanished in 1066. If bookland is needed for a dis page, for example if the British Columbia bookstore of that name suddenly becomes as big as Barnes and Nobles, some other names that could be used are Bookland (EAN), Bookland (ISBN) or Bookland barcode. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• And various other bookshops etc named Bookland: call Google search for "Bookland". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems my suggestion was misinterpreted: I meant to move Bookland (imaginary place)'s info to Bookland, and redirect Bookland (imaginary place) back to Bookland; where the material is kept. Eh, seems fine now, though perhaps it should just be called Bookland instead of the clunky Bookland (imaginary place) (umm...). And *loud hacking cough*, it is supposed to be Bookland (fictional location); see Fictional location: second sentence. Wonder why no one else noticed it... *sigh* Oh, well, we just have to wait until some admin comes and reprimises everything correctly.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c ) 04:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment it's not a fictional location, it's an organizational hack using a ficticious country code. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... you read the article, right? It's a special code configuration assigning books to a corresponding fictional location on the globe... and for... please read Fictional location:second sentence again. *sigh*

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c ) 01:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what they meant by not a fictional location, is that there is no description of bookland, other than the vague "that's where books come from". Normally with a fictional location there is a very rich description of the fictional location, like middle earth, or in the Harry Potter books. So in that sense, no it is not a fictional location, it is a fictitious location. And yes it is certainly a hack to make the system work. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Musicland" is a similar concept to Bookland, for the transcoding of ISMN10 sheet music id number into ISMN13 EAN prefix 979 (note this prefix is shared with ISBN, the "M" in the ISMN transcodes as 0, and the checkdigit remains the same because ISMN uses the GS1 algortihm. Hence 9790 is sheet music.) New ISMN prefixes will be issued as ISMN13 as of mid 2008 http://ismn-international.org/download/GuidelinesGeneral.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.125.16.11 (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Uninvolved admin determined there was no consensus to merge to EAN. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

---

OK, I'm pretty annoyed by everyone here. Can we please discuss the merger rather than just edit war over it? An article which was just kept at AfD really shouldn't be merged without some form of discussion. We take it as granted that this article meets notability requirements--thus the keep. Let's move forward and see why this should be merged. I certainly believe that as it stands the merge target has way too much on this topic in proportion to its importance to the topic. A sentence or 3 would be plenty. I also don't see the reason to merge this. It is, in my opinion, an interesting topic that certainly has plenty of coverage and real-world relevance. So, why merge? Hobit (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Also, would everyone (and that includes Sarek who I generally find very levelheaded) please read WP:BRD before proceeding here? Hobit (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  Are you the person who carried out the eighth revert on the article yesterday? I think so. So cut out the moralistic crap. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 05:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  Are you the person who merged without discussion and then reverted twice to their preferred version? What was that about moralizing again? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  Sure, I reverted. When did I ever moralise? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  <ec>I responded on your talk page, I'll respond here. WP:BRD makes it pretty plain when making a bold change that once reverted you should discuss rather than re-revert. The net effect is that after a bold change gets reverted we should end up with a discussion and the previous status quo until the discussion resolves otherwise. That is what my revert, and starting this discussion, did. You should have started this discussion rather than reverting CW rather than making some 3rd party (me) do it for you. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  This is a yes or no question: did you make the 8th revert on this page as part of a content dispute in which you were involved? If it's yes, then you are in no business to be "pretty annoyed" by the reverts of others. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Merge—borderline-notable topic, and a short article, which is entirely a subset, thematically, of European Article Number. Can anyone provide any reason not to merge, other than "interesting topic" then? ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 05:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Merge - Bookland only has relevance within the context of the EAN, so it should probably be dealt with in that article. (Also, I've added the appropriate discussion tags to both articles.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Don't Merge <ec> In response to TT, it's not even vaguely boarderline. Per the GNG it's well over the line (see the AfD and DRV). For another, merging it in whole to where you did really provides undue weight to the EAN article. And I think the bookland improves the encyclopedia. Call it "I like it" or "it's useful" if you wish, but both are fair reasons to keep around a notable topic. That essay is about notability discussions, and notability isn't an issue here. Hobit (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  Procedural note—the above editor has !voted twice, and the above bolding appears to be done largely to mask this fact. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 17:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  Procedural note User:TreasuryTag has repeatedly misrepresented the facts in an uncivil and disruptive way during the now long history of this matter. Quite why he has gone tilt is beyond me but, now he is attacking Hobit, it needs to be said. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  Procedural note—you appear to be unfamiliar with the definition of an "attack" but WP:WQA is nevertheless open to you if you wish to take this further. Or, you could choose to clutter up this discussion with behavioural issues which do not belong here. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Don't Merge The topic is certainly notable as I find that there are numerous sources and have no difficulty in citing them. The topic relates to numerous other articles besides European Article Number such as International Standard Book Number, List of GS1 country codes, Global Trade Item Number, &c. It seems sensible to retain this article as a bridge between these various developing standards. It explains the matter quite well and so I don't really understand what the problem is supposed to be which suggests such furious action and intensity. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Don't Merge In addition to the undue weight issues raised above, the notability of Bookland as an unusually real fictional country is independent of its relative notability within the EAN standard. In fact, the fictional country article for years has linked Bookland as an exemplar of how a fictional country might be created to satisfy technical requirements in the real world. - Morinao (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Is it safe to say at this point that there is no consensus for a merge? Hobit (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  No, it isn't. The discussion has only been open about a week. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 14:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  How long is long enough in your opinion? AfDs are 10 days I believe, seems like about the right length for a merge discussion if things have pretty much settled down. Your thoughts? Hobit (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  Help:Merging doesn't provide any clear guidance. AfDs run for 7 days, RfCs for 30. 14 days would probably be good here... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable. I don't know why I was thinking AfDs went from 7 to 10 days, it was 5 to 7. Ah well. Hobit (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Removed the merge suggestions etc. based on discussion above. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  Well at least the tags were removed by someone who wasn't involved. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 17:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  Happy to help! Hobit (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unserious!

This article isn't serious enough! There's too much humor in it. 76.8.237.112 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

---

• Bookland → Bookland (administrative fiction)
• Bookland (law) → Bookland

– Primary topic in scholarly sources () and more enduring notability. Srnec (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 20:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 03:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose the administrative fiction has 4,032 views but the law meaning only has 362[]. A DAB might be better but it appears the fictional meaning is primary at least by usage though I'd normally real things over fiction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure those views mean much given that it is the primary topic right now. In real-world sources I can see on Google Books or Google Scholar, the legal meaning is more prominent. It isn't even close. Srnec (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, I guess? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Libraries, WikiProject Books, and WikiProject Retailing have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 03:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The historic usage is of relatively little current interest, while the barcode is current and an important part of EU administration. No evidence that the historic term is of more enduring notability. The existing DAB and the existing hatnote to it cover this situation well. Andrewa (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  This article isn't about a barcode. We have International Article Number and ISBN for that. There is no evidence that the term 'bookland' is primarily associated with EU administration or is even widely used in that regard. All the sources cited on this page contain only passing mentions (or no mention, as in the case of footnote 5). Compared to the scholarly sources I linked to, this is paltry. Srnec (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  You say This article isn't about a barcode. But the article currently starts out "Bookland" is a fictitious country that exists solely in the European Article Number (EAN) barcode system, (my emphasis). Are you saying this is not the case?

  I suppose in a sense it isn't about a barcode in that it's about all barcodes covered by the codes "978" and later "979" when used as European Article Number (EAN) prefixes. So it's about the range of barcodes with those two specific prefixes. But it is still a relatively important topic when compared to Bookland (law) which is relatively esoteric. Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I am saying that "is a fictional country" defines the subject as something, while "in the ... barcode system" does not. Why do we need an article on a range of barcodes? Why do we define such a thing as a fictional country? This does not seem less esoteric than a concept in Anglo-Saxon law that has the advantage of having been written about more extensively in published books and scholarly papers. Pretending that a numerical prefix corresponds to a fictional country and calling that place Bookland is just a funny thing they did. It does not seem terribly important as such. Srnec (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  We need an article on a range of barcodes because it is an encyclopedic subject with good sources.

  We do not define such a thing as a fictional country, again we instead follow sources. If these describe Bookland as a fictional country (and they do), then we can and should do so too. And otherwise we can't.

  I respect your opinion that Pretending that a numerical prefix corresponds to a fictional country and calling that place Bookland is just a funny thing they did, but pretending here seems emotive and POV... again, unless supported by sources. Andrewa (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've been at work all morning. Was going to post this: It's not made up by us. A check of International Article Number#GS1 prefix and List of GS1 country codes should confirm this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I never meant to suggest we made it up. By "we", I meant only "in our voice" not "on our authority". It was a rhetorical question directed at the claim that the Anglo-Saxon concept was "relatively esoteric". And "pretending" was merely emphatic and redundant to "fictonal". Obviously, fictonal countries are pretend. Perhaps Andrewa could add some of his "good sources" to the article, since all the existing sources containing passing mentions at best. Srnec (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you mean by passing mentions at best... It seems to mean that some of them don't even contain passing mentions, in which case these aren't sources at all and should be removed. And that those that do contain only passing mentions should be disregarded as sources for the purpose of determining whether an article name is used in English, in which case this condition should be included in our article naming policy, and it isn't, or am I missing it?

It seems to me that what we are interested in here is just whether the term is a common part of the English language when referring to the topic in question. We determine this by looking for occurrences of the term in English. Whether or not an occurrence is as a passing mention is not even slightly relevant, this occurrence is in either case evidence of usage.

The good sources to which I referred are already in the article. Andrewa (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The question raised by the RM was whether or not this article is the primary topic for the term "Bookland". Looking for occurrences of the term in English is exactly how this RM began. I was surprised to land here and my searches seemed to confirm that this is not what the term primarily refers to in English reliable sources (what matters the most per WP:DPT). Srnec (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)